Tag Archive for: nuclear weapons

Critically Thinking about Iran: Some facts to consider when negotiating a peace deal

President Trump was scheduled to meet with his cabinet today, concerning the Iran issue, and then plans changed… If I were there, I would say: “Before proceeding, let’s see if we can all agree on some basic facts.” I would then propose the following…

Fact #1:

Over the last four decades, Iran has been an aggressive supporter of frequent, widespread terrorism worldwide.

Fact #2:

Over the last four decades, the government of Iran has killed 100,000+ Iranian citizens in a ruthless effort to maintain its power.

Fact #3:

Over the last four decades, Iran has repeatedly made it very clear that one of its main objectives is to harm and undermine America.

Fact #4:

Over the last four decades, Iran has been seriously working on developing a nuclear bomb, plus longer-range delivery ballistic missiles.

Fact #5:

Over the last four decades, attempts by prior US administrations to appease Iran (including giving them Billions of dollars) have not changed #1 thru #4.

Fact #6:

Over the last four decades, Iran has repeatedly publicly equivocated, distorted, and lied, so it is now extremely difficult to trust anything they say.

Fact #7:

Over the last four decades, Trump has been the first President to take meaningful actions to defang Iran.

Fact #8:

The US bombing of bridges, power facilities, etc., will harm Iranian citizens more than their leaders — so that is an inferior military/political strategy.

Fact #9:

It would seem that the US taking control of Kharg Island would be a strategic move that could have a major impact on Iranian leaders.

Fact #10:

Iran is acutely aware of the divisiveness of this issue in the US, which is encouraging them to string this along rather than come to terms.

Fact #11:

US Non-negotiables should be: a) Iran having zero nuclear weapons, and b) no restrictions for ships to traverse the Strait of Hormuz.

Fact #12:

In negotiating with Iran, President Trump should not be giving significant weight to temporary US difficulties, like higher gas prices.

Fact #13:

In negotiating with Iran, President Trump should not be giving significant consideration to who will get the credit for a successful ending.

Fact #14:

From a losing face perspective, it is much more likely that Iran would capitulate to a collection of unified countries than to the US alone.

Fact #15:

The US does not need help to defeat Iran, but it would: a) be politically wise, and b) accelerate the end of this matter, to accept assistance from allies.

Suggestion

When negotiating a Peace agreement, it would demonstrate good faith for the US to acknowledge several prior bad acts on its part. As compensation for these, the US should agree to spend several Billion dollars (that they control and oversee) to assist with rebuilding Iran.

Note 1: This is NOT a complete list of Facts, but rather a representative sample.

Note 2: For some background on US-Iran relations, read this.

Note 3: This gives an inkling of how Iranians are to negotiate with.

©2026 All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump Calls Unusual Cabinet Meeting as Iran Negotiations Stall


Here is other information from this scientist that you might find interesting:

I urge all readers to subscribe to AlterAI — IMO the absolute best AI option for subjective questions.

I will consider posting reader submissions on Critical Thinking about my topics of interest.

My commentaries are my opinion about the material discussed therein, based on the information I have. If any readers have different information, please share it. If it is credible, I will be glad to reconsider my position.

Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.

C19Science.info is my one-page website that covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.

Election-Integrity.info is my one-page website that lists multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.

WiseEnergy.org is my multi-page website that discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.

Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from climate to COVID, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2026 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time!)

Netanyahu Insists Iran War Is ‘Not Over,’ Says Trump Wants to ‘Physically’ Remove Uranium

THE DAILY CALLER NEWS FOUNDATION—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a “60 Minutes” interview airing Sunday that President Donald Trump wanted to remove Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium.

The United States and Israel launched military strikes against Iran on Feb. 28 after talks regarding the Islamic regime’s nuclear program broke down. Netanyahu told CBS News reporter Major Garrett that, while the campaign had achieved “a great deal,” he believed there was still “work to be done.”

“There’s still nuclear material—enriched uranium—that has to be taken out of Iran. There’s still enrichment sites that have to be dismantled,” Netanyahu said. “There’s still proxies that Iran supports, there’s ballistic missiles that they still want to produce. Now, we have degraded a lot of it, but all that is still there and there’s work to be done.”

“How do you envision the highly enriched uranium will be removed from Iran?” Garrett asked.

“You go in and you take it out,” Netanyahu replied.

WATCH:

Iranian state media claimed the rescued crew of a downed F-15E Strike Eagle was part of an operation targeting Iranian nuclear materiel kept at Isfahan, where Iran has a research center. Iranian outlets also claimed the U.S. lost multiple aircraft, but United States Central Command confirmed only one A-10 Thunderbolt close-air-support plane was lost and its pilot was safely recovered.

“With what, special forces from Israel, special forces [from the] United States?” Garrett asked.

“Well, I’m not gonna talk about military means, but the president— what President Trump said to me, ‘I want to go in there and I think it can be done physically,’” Netanyahu responded. “That’s not the problem. If you have an agreement and you go in and you take it out, why not? That’s the best way.”

“What if there isn’t an agreement? Can it be taken out by force?” Garrett asked.

“Well, [if] you’re gonna ask me these questions, I’m gonna dodge them because I’m not gonna talk about our military possibilities, plans, or anything of that kind,” the prime minister replied.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright claimed during a Sunday interview on “Meet the Press” that Iran had material for ten nuclear devices and over 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to 60%. Wright also asserted that ending the Iranian nuclear program would lower energy costs in the long term. Trump Middle East Envoy Steve Witkoff made similar allegations in a March 2 interview with Sean Hannity, but the administration has not offered evidence to corroborate the assertions from Witkoff or Wright.

Trump and other administration officials asserted the Iranian nuclear program was “obliterated” after the June 2025 strike against multiple Iranian nuclear sites, but maintained Iran posed a threat to the U.S. without providing specific details. Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously said the U.S. launched strikes because an Iranian response to Israel’s planned attack could have potentially targeted American forces.

The New York Times reported April 7 that, despite skepticism from administration officials, including Vice President JD Vance, Trump was convinced to launch strikes against Iran during a Feb. 11 visit to the White House by Netanyahu.

Former Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Joe Kent resigned March 17 over the conflict, claiming the war began “due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.” He also argued in an X post that Iran posed no “imminent threat” to the United States.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Originally published by The Daily Caller News Foundation.

AUTHOR

Harold Hutchison

Harold Hutchison is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation.

RELATED VIDEO: Iran informs President Trump he will make a “HUGE MISTAKE” if he Dares resume hostilities

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

PERKINS: Leadership by Principle, Not Polling

Sir Edmund Burke, in a speech to the Electors of Bristol in 1774, said: “Your representative owes you not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”

That may not sit well in an age of polling and clamor for direct democracy, but the reality is this: the duty of statesmen is not to follow public opinion, but to lead it. In moments of crisis, leaders are not called to read the polls — they are called to rise above them.

And that is exactly what President Donald Trump has done to this point in the war with Iran. When asked about public polling — where most surveys show a majority opposing the war — Trump responded, “I don’t care about polling.”

That statement gained my immediate attention, because in almost every conversation or meeting I have had with the president, he often references the polls — favorable polls.

I note this not as criticism, but to commend the president for stepping into the role of a statesman who leads in the direction the nation needs to go, regardless of the political consequences.

The stock market — very familiar territory for the president — has gone a bit wobbly. Gas prices have risen quickly, though they remain below the peak Americans experienced in the summer of 2022, when the average gallon approached $5. Some congressional Republicans are also expressing concern about the possible impact on the midterm elections.

These are big issues — in the short term. That is why most administrations confronting the Iranian nuclear threat sought to contain it, if they could not avoid it altogether.

To use a familiar phrase from American politics over the last 60 or 70 years, they simply kicked the can down the road so the next administration — or the next generation — would deal with it.

Donald Trump concluded there was no road left.

Open sources suggest Iran possessed roughly 1,000 pounds of uranium enriched to 60% before the launch of Operation Epic Fury. Iran was racing to reach the 90% weapons-grade level — enough material for roughly 10 nuclear warheads. Enough to hold the world hostage, if not destroy large parts of it.

If there has been a justifiable war since World War II, this may be it. This is not defending oil-rich countries made wealthy by American dependence. This is confronting a direct threat to our security and to that of our natural ally, Israel.

When the leadership of a rogue regime repeatedly calls America the “Great Satan,” vows to destroy us, and sponsors repeated terrorist attacks against Americans — at what point should we believe them?

As president, Donald Trump had the constitutional authority to act. Based on the available facts, the war is justified, and the stated purpose is right: peace in the Middle East and justice for the Iranian people.

President Trump should be commended for taking the regime at its word and responding — not because it was politically popular, but because it was justified, militarily and morally.

And in doing so, he illustrated the very principle Burke described 250 years ago: a leader who governs not by the polls, but by judgment.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

US and Israel Strike ‘Regime’s Protest-Crushing Machine’

Muslim Gunman Mohamed Jalloh Who Shouted “ALLAHU AKBAR!” In Fatal Old Dominion University Shooting ID’d as Convicted Islamic State Supporter

Armed Siege at Norway Synagogue: Elite Police Swarm Trondheim in Major Operation

Active Shooter at Temple Israel, Synagogue and School in Michigan

ISIS Signs Inside Mamdani’s Mansion After Jihad Shrapnel Bombing

Three Muslim Brothers Arrested in Terror Bomb Blast at US Embassy in Norway

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Pushes to ‘Finish the Job’ in Iran

While the media drones on about the unpopularity of the president’s operation in Iran, Americans’ opinions, with all due respect, don’t really matter. In eight months, voters will have the chance to grade the Trump administration’s decision to level the Islamist regime that’s terrorized the West for decades. But until then, the only thing that anyone should care about, apart from the safety of U.S. troops, is the United States and its allies getting as close to eliminating one of the world’s greatest existential threats as humanely possible.

That doesn’t mean there isn’t confusion about next steps. In one soundbite, President Trump says the war is almost over, and in the next, he allows for the possibility of ground troops. One thing he could certainly stand to improve is his messaging. And yet, as contradictory as his statements may be, the why of the administration’s action should never be in question. As Thérèse Shaheen is quick to point out in National Review, “In the case of Iran, the threat is not speculative. Iran’s intent, capabilities, and behavior have had demonstrably dangerous results for America and Americans.” If the president had intelligence that a “catastrophic conflict” was likely, then acting now, she argues, “may prevent greater destruction later.”

We may never know what classified information went into Trump’s decision-making or timeline, but the reality is this: the majority of people in this country elected him to act in the best interest of America. Like it or not, voters chose him to use his own judgment when it came to confronting the bullies of this world. And they supported him, recognizing that this was a possibility. As Trump himself bragged this week, “No other president had the guts to do it.”

And the reality is, even after months of diplomatic attempts, Iran’s leaders were never interested in peace. “[They’ve] been notorious for using negotiations to drag out talks to continue enriching uranium — while never agreeing to anything,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told Family Research Council President Tony Perkins on “This Week on Capitol Hill.” “They were never going to agree to stop working towards a nuclear weapons program. And so, President Trump finally said, ‘If they will kill tens of thousands of their own people, they will not hesitate to kill Americans if they get a nuclear bomb, and once they get that bomb, it’s too late to negotiate with them, because then you lose that leverage.’ This was the time to strike.”

As a planet, the hope now must be that the alliance of America, Israel, and other Arab nations finishes the job. And based on the reports from Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and other top officials, the U.S. will not accept anything but the complete dismantling of Iran’s military and nuclear power. Deep into its second week, Hegseth told the media that Tuesday “will be yet again our most intense day of strikes inside Iran,” which is a bold statement considering the 5,000 targets already hit.

Meanwhile, the decimated government, including new Supreme Leader Mojitaba Khamenei, is struggling to respond. According to the secretary, “The mullahs are desperate and scrambling. Like the terrorist cowards they are, they fire missiles from schools and hospitals, deliberately targeting innocents, because they know their military is being systematically degraded and annihilated.” Joint Chiefs of Staff General Dan Caine explained that Iran is “fighting, and I respect that. But I don’t think they’re more formidable than what we thought.” Even now, the conflict is dramatically one-sided. “We’ve made significant progress in reducing the number of missile and drone attacks out of Iran,” Caine acknowledged. “Ballistic missile attacks continue to trend downward, 90% from where they’ve started, and one-way attack drones have decreased 83%, since the beginning of the operation.”

Incredibly, Iran’s targets continue to be other neighbors, which most experts believe only helps the U.S. “The talking points you heard going into this [were], ‘If we ever did what needed to be done with Iran, the whole Middle East would be in an uproar against us,” Rep. Michael Cloud (R-Texas) pointed out on “Washington Watch” Monday. “[And] what we’ve seen is the opposite, where we see other nations, maybe not to the extent we’d like, but they’re certainly not joining in the fight with Iran. They’re saying, ‘These guys have been a menace to our region. We want peace for our kids. We want peace for our family. We want peace for our region. And what that means is taking out the capability of Iran to do evil things in their region and around the world.’”

From a strategic standpoint, broadening their response is foolish, most agree. “Iran has done Trump a favor by attacking all its Arab neighbors,” Elliott Abrams argues, “which makes those neighbors U.S. and Israeli allies. The U.S. does not now need to cajole them into assisting our forces this week and helping to stop Iranian missiles and drones aimed at Israel; we are all on the same side against Iran. We can assume that after the war, there will be new U.S. diplomatic efforts to bring Israel and the Arabs closer by expanding the Abraham Accords.”

While his crippled country tries to retaliate, the younger Khamenei remains in hiding — his dwindling lieutenants still talking tough. Almost comically, Iran’s National Security Council secretary insisted Iran isn’t losing the war before threatening Trump, “Even those greater than you have failed to eliminate the Iranian nation. Be careful not to be eliminated yourself!”

The choice of the late ayatollah’s son was a defiant shot across the bow, most believe. “He’s a chip off the old block,” Dr. David Adesnik shook his head on Monday’s “Washington Watch,” “and the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. … He’s not necessarily a distinguished religious thinker,” the vice president at the Foundation for Defense of the Democracies warned. “He’s someone who’s made his way by being put in positions of power by his father and managing them relatively well, at least from his father’s perspective. I think you would count him among the hardest of the hardliners in the regime. His choice is an indication that other hardliners in the Revolutionary Guard and outside the Revolutionary Guard are continuing to steer this war in a direction of further confrontation, not one of any compromise.”

He added, “If President Trump wanted there to be a [moderate] who might be interested in a resolution, this is not his man.”

It all raises the question: where is this headed, and what does victory even look like? Adesnik isn’t sure. “I regret to say I have a fair amount of uncertainty. … I think we’ve been hoping to some extent the Iranian people would come out, renew their protests, and overthrow the regime, but of course, that would mean doing it while there’s fighting going on. And it’s not entirely clear. How long will we persist? Would we cut a deal that perhaps ended the war and left Mojtaba Khamenei, the new leader, in power? Or are we really going all the way to the end?”

Trump defined success as an Iran that’s incapable and unwilling to develop nuclear weapons, but he also had strong advice for the country’s oppressed people. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be, probably, your only chance for generations.”

Either way, this administration and its allies are changing the course of history. “Even if the regime hangs on,” Abrams suggests, “its pretense to be the dominant regional power — with a huge ballistic missile array and a nuclear weapons program — will have been shattered. While we cannot predict the date of its collapse,” he goes on, “whether that takes weeks, months, or years, that collapse has been brought closer. The credit belongs to Donald Trump, who has made a bold and risky decision that deserves firm support.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council,


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Why Confronting Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions Is About Global Security — Not the Epstein Distraction

In recent days, one of the most puzzling arguments circulating on social media is the claim that the ongoing United States military operation Epic Fury against Iran by, alongside Israel operation Roaring Lion, is merely an attempt to distract from the controversy surrounding the files. This claim is not only misleading but also ignores years of consistent U.S. policy toward Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Long before the current tensions, President Trump made it clear that under no circumstances would he allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons or develop long-range missile capabilities. This reason is very simple, Washington as well as its allies believes the government in Tehran cannot be trusted with such dangerous weapons.

Iran has long been accused of financing and supporting several militant groups across the Middle East, including in Gaza, the organization in Lebanon, and the movement in Yemen. These groups have played significant roles in destabilizing the region and escalating tensions with Israel and treating the interest of United States.

The concern about Iran acquiring nuclear weapons is not limited to one political party in the United States. Presidents from both parties Democrats and Republican over the years have consistently warned that a nuclear-armed Iran would make the world significantly less safe. In fact, many countries in the Middle East share this concern. Nations such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Turkey along with several others across the region have expressed serious reservations about Tehran developing nuclear capabilities.

Critics have also long debated the effectiveness of President Obama 2015 nuclear agreement negotiated during the administration. It was discovered that the deal provided Iran with financial relief without permanently dismantling its nuclear infrastructure. Some analysts believe that the financial resources released to Iran were partly used to strengthen Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah who regional proxy groups funded by Ayatollahs.

In my opinion I believed Obama Administration really help the Iranian to accelerate the development of its nuke.

Despite the Democrats and media criticism of this current administration regardless of how it benefits the interest of United States. President Trump has repeatedly portrayed himself as a leader seeking peace through negotiation and deterrence. His administration has often emphasized the concept of “peace through strength,” arguing that firm pressure can prevent larger conflicts.

On March 7, 2025, President Trump announced that he had sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader, proposing renewed negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. In the letter, Trump warned that failure to reach an agreement could result in serious military consequences.

The proposal reportedly required Iran to fully dismantle its nuclear program, halt all uranium enrichment, and end its support for regional proxy groups within two months. In return, the United States offered the possibility of lifting sanctions and normalizing relations with Tehran.

According to reports from negotiations, U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff stated on Fox News that Iranian negotiators claimed they possessed roughly 460 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity. Such statements naturally raised alarm in Washington, as uranium enriched to that level is considered dangerously close to weapons-grade material.

It is important to note that there is no American president regardless of party would ignore this kind of statement.

In Nigeria and across social media, many observers are taking sides in the conflict largely through religious or emotional lenses. However, the issue at stake goes beyond religion. At its core, the debate revolves around global power dynamics, regional stability in the Middle East, and the broader question of nuclear proliferation.
Ultimately, supporters of the current U.S. policy argue that strong leadership and decisive action are necessary to prevent a more dangerous future.

For them, the guiding principle remains simple: peace through strength.

©2026 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Beware Turkey’s Ambitions in the Post-Iran Power Vacuum

Iran’s Ayatollah Is Facing Defeat instead of Admitting Failure

Time is running out for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his repressive regime in the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, a unique window of opportunity for the Iranian people opens next week, and the Trump administration is likely preparing to lend support this time before the window closes yet again.

Like he did in early 2025, President Donald Trump is giving Iran a limited opportunity to negotiate a satisfactory solution. As in 2025, however, Iran has shown no signs of negotiating in good faith, indicating its reluctance to fully surrender their nuclear program and refusal to discuss a ballistic missile program that is an existential threat to Israel and a malign proxy network that has destabilized the region for decades.

The strategy of suppressing at home and threatening abroad has been an abject failure. Yet despite their weakness, the ayatollah and his loyalists appear more willing to face defeat than admit failure.

The United States and its allies and partners in the region have had a month to marshal offensive resources and array defensive measures. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime is using the same negotiating playbook of stalling, threatening, and avoiding while the possibility of strikes against them looms large.

Trading away their nuclear program would be to admit failure, and that is a bridge too far for a regime whose pride may be the only thing more motivating than its own survival. The Iranian nuclear program has been the centerpiece of the conceit of Iran’s leaders, worthy of up to a half trillion dollars of investment and opportunity cost. Even though the program was largely turned to rubble in one night last June by seven American B-2s, trading it away would acknowledge that the ayatollah and his loyalists have wasted the well-being of the Iranian people and squandered their future.

Next week, the 17th and the 18th of February specifically, mark the end of the 40-day mourning period for the thousands — if not tens of thousands — of protestors who were ruthlessly slaughtered by the Iranian regime in early January. Reports indicate that there is a surge of dissatisfaction simmering among the Iranian people, and these mourning people will uniquely combine large crowds with powerful passion. The United States is properly postured to support the protestors this time around and may see strikes as a catalyst to allow the bubbling frustration to burst forth yet again.

The preparations by the United States for such a situation are made even more evident by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the White House this week. A visit that had been scheduled for next week has been accelerated, indicating that preparations made next week may be too late. That the prime minister is bringing along his incoming air chief, an atypical plus-one for such a strategic meeting, is a telling indication of operational planning. Thus, the United States and Israel are telegraphing strategic steps that indicate a looming military operation.

Finally, President Trump’s credibility is on the line. After claims that the United States is “locked and loaded” — on top of presidential promises to protestors that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY” — Iran has blatantly exceeded Trump’s red lines. Without an active response that supports his claims, Trump realizes that his legacy will include a condemning asterisk of weakness. He is unlikely to allow such a blemish on his record.

Next week offers an opportunity where geopolitical pretext meets military preparation. Meanwhile, the Iranian regime negotiates in bad faith, creating a situation where they would rather face defeat instead of admitting failure. By using the same failed negotiating tactics, the repressive regime in Iran should expect the same ruinous outcome from a year ago, this time accompanied by a defeat that may allow the Iranian people to finally shed their repressive regime.

AUTHOR

John Teichert

United States Air Force Brig. General (Ret.) John Teichert is a leading expert on foreign affairs and military strategy. He served as commander of Joint Base Andrews and Edwards Air Force Base, was the U.S. senior defense official to Iraq, and recently retired as the assistant deputy undersecretary of the Air Force for international affairs.

RELATED VIDEO: BEYOND RECKONING: U.S. Total Supremacy over Iran

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2026 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump Vows to Repeat Strikes after Iran Vows to Continue Nuclear Program

Even after a U.S. strike devastated their nuclear program last month, Iran is doubling down on continuing to pursue nuclear enrichment, declaring Monday that it “cannot give up” the program due to “national pride.” President Trump responded by stating that the U.S. would repeat a strike on Tehran to thwart a future nuclear threat “if necessary.”

During a Fox News interview on Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated, “We cannot give up our enrichment because it is an achievement of our own scientists. And now, more than that, it is a question of national pride. Our enrichment is so dear to us.”

Araghchi went on to acknowledge that the Islamist regime’s nuclear facilities had been “seriously damaged” by the U.S. strike and that the country’s enrichment operations are currently at a standstill. The admission bolstered a recent American intelligence assessment that found that Iran’s primary enrichment site buried deep underneath a mountain at Fordo had been severely damaged and likely destroyed, an appraisal that had been in doubt after initial reports estimated that the damage may not have been extensive.

In response to Araghchi’s admission, President Trump posted on Truth Social Monday, “Of course they are, just like I said, and we will do it again, if necessary!”

The U.S. strikes came after experts warned that the Islamist regime was days away from producing a nuclear warhead, with some saying that Tehran’s enrichment facilities would likely be able to churn out multiple weapons within weeks. Experts now estimate that it would take the regime several years to rebuild the program. The New York Times has noted that any future efforts that Iran would make to rebuild their enrichment facilities will likely be swiftly detected by the U.S. and Israel. With the regime’s air defenses crippled, it would be difficult to fend off another attack. Last week, an Israeli official stated that the country was ready to “mow the lawn” at the heavily damaged sites, suggesting that any efforts to rebuild could be quickly destroyed again.

Still, experts like former Trump national security adviser John Bolton say that Iran’s objective to obtain a nuclear weapon remains unchanged.

“They’ve obviously suffered significant damage to both the nuclear program and their ballistic missile program,” he reiterated during “This Week on Capitol Hill” over the weekend. “And I think they’ve shown their real sentiments in the past week or 10 days by effectively making it impossible for international inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to stay in Iran. The regime said, ‘We can’t guarantee your safety.’ And the IAEA took the hint and said they were going to withdraw their personnel. … This regime has never modified its radical theology that came into power back in 1979. It’s still run by that same ideology, which is why it’s a threat to the U.S., to Israel, to Arab governments in the region.”

If Iran fails to reach an agreement with the U.S. and Europe over its nuclear program by the end of August, increased international sanctions and arms restrictions against the regime are likely to be put in place. Bolton, who formerly served as ambassador to the United Nations under George W. Bush, explained how the sanctions could be carried out.

“Because the 2015 Iran nuclear deal is now coming to an end … there’s a provision in there that allows the U.N. Security Council to reimpose international sanctions,” he detailed. “[T]he U.S. … has reimposed those sanctions, but the Europeans have not. So this is a threat really from the Europeans that if the Iranians don’t get serious, they will reimpose sanctions, which I think would be an entirely good thing, because that would show even more pressure, more unity among Western nations against Iran’s effort to get nuclear weapons. But I don’t think it will dissuade the Iranians. I think the benefit to the United States is to finally bring the Europeans over to a stronger position against this very threatening regime in Tehran.”

Bolton went on to urge the Trump administration to more stringently enforce sanctions against Iran in order to continue the squeeze on the regime without having to resort to military action.

“Economic sanctions and tariffs and a variety of other things the U.S. could do are a form of warfare — economic warfare, not kinetic warfare,” he observed. “But I’d have to say our record of enforcing sanctions across many administrations for decades now has not been as effective as it could be. I think if we were to have stricter enforcement, the sanctions would bite harder and would therefore be more effective. And the whole point of using economic measures first is to try and avoid having to go to military action. So stronger sanctions, better enforced, I think, are very much in America’s interest, and we ought to be looking at how to use the sanctions more effectively than we have.”

AUTHOR

Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Iranian Regime Spreads Antisemitism: Supreme Leader Khamenei Depicts Zionists And Jews As Rats; Senior Journalist Says Jews And Israel Are Using Witchcraft Against Iran

Zeinab Akil, Daughter Of Slain Hizbullah Military Commander Ibrahim Akil: I Am Planning To Carry Out A Suicide Attack Myself If Needed; If We Cannot Import Weapons From Iran, We Can Obtain Them From India, China, Or Russia – Or Use Our Own Bodies

Hizbullah Celebrates Decision To Release Militant Georges Abdallah From French Prison; Popular Front For The Liberation Of Palestine (PFLP) And Terrorist-Designated Samidoun Call On France To Resist ‘American-Zionist’ Dictates

The Tragedy Of The Druze Community In Syria – Granting International Legitimacy To A Government That Has Not Demonstrated The Basic Ability Or Willingness To Protect Its People Is An Indirect Endorsement Of Violence

Wadah Khanfar, Former Director General Of Al Jazeera: The West Has Humiliated The Islamic Nation For The Past Century With Its ‘Deformed Modernity’; It Seeks To Fragment The Middle East To Protect Israel’s Security

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Iranian Regime Still Living in an Alternate Universe

The Islamist regime that governs Iran is still behaving as if it did not just lose a devastating war. Over the past two years, Israel has systematically destroyed Iran’s terrorist proxies, air defense, and missile capabilities, and then Israel and the U.S. set back its nuclear weapons program by years or decades in an intensive air bombardment. Already, the vanquished is presuming to engage with the victors on an equal footing.

The most recent example came in a speech Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi gave this weekend to diplomats in Tehran, in which he condescendingly allowed that Iran is ready to re-engage with the U.S. in talks over the future of its nuclear program and potential sanctions relief — but only if all of Iran’s conditions are met. He demanded “assurance … that, in case of a resumption of talks, the trend will not lead to war.”

“First of all,” Araghchi insisted, “there should be a firm guarantee that such actions [as the U.S. bombing of its nuclear facilities] will not be repeated. The attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities has made it more difficult and complicated to achieve a solution based on negotiations.”

On June 21, the U.S. military executed a stunning campaign that dropped high-powered bombs on Iran’s top three nuclear sites, burying the bunkers deep under rubble without Iran ever knowing what hit them. In an interview published Monday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian admitted the U.S. airstrikes so damaged the sites that Iran still has not been able to assess the extent of the destruction.

The stunning operation came after months of fruitless negotiations, in which Iranian negotiators would agree to little more than the next meeting. Despite the strict deadline President Trump imposed up front, the Iranian regime never budged from the position that it would continue enriching uranium to nearly-weapons-grade levels as fast as possible.

In other words, Araghchi’s remarks were merely a crude attempt to rewrite history. There never was any hope “to achieve a solution based on negotiations.” The only solution acceptable to President Donald Trump is one in which the Iranian regime gave up its nuclear weapons program and stockpiles of enriched uranium. The only solution Iran envisioned is one in which it would become a nuclear-armed power.

Only after this impasse became abundantly apparent did President Trump resort to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. Far from “difficult and complicated,” this presented an easy and simple solution to the problem, at least so far as America’s priorities went.

Furthermore, with Iran’s nuclear weapons program set back by years, there was no longer any point to America continuing the negotiations, nor offering the possibility of sanctions relief. Negotiations were not an end in themselves, but merely a tool that served as a means to the end of eliminating Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Trump found another, easier means to that end, so further negotiations would be, from the American perspective, a means to nothing.

Araghchi offered to re-enter negotiations with the U.S., on the condition that America pledge not to bomb their nuclear sites again. In other words, he demands that America voluntarily forgo the most effective means to dismantle Iran’s nuclear weapons program, in exchange for another means that never offered much promise. This gets the priority of the objectives exactly backward, pretending that the negotiations were an end in themselves, and not a means to achieve something else.

The one possible advantage to a negotiated solution is that it would offer a more permanent resolution. Instead of setting Iran back by years or decades, at which point their nuclear program would again become a threat, a negotiated solution would cause Iran to desist from its efforts to build a nuclear weapon, thus eliminating the future threat.

But this would require the Iranian regime to operate in good faith in negotiating and implementing the dissolution of its nuclear weapons program, something they have not demonstrated a willingness to do.

Ever since 2003, Iran has quarreled with U.N. nuclear inspectors over the lack of transparency in its program — a quarrel that culminated in June when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors officially found Iran in non-compliance. Iran reacted defiantly by declaring its intention to expand its non-compliance by opening yet another uranium enrichment site, at which point Israel began its devastating bombardment. Even since America’s bombing run literally buried the program, Iranian officials have repeatedly declared their intention to exhume and resuscitate the country’s nuclear program.

Iranian lawmakers revealed the regime’s true intentions last month, when they enacted legislation to suspend cooperation with the IAEA, thus violating their obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. As the bill received final approval, lawmakers broke out into chants of “Death to America!” and “Death to Israel!” — suggesting that any proposals to find “a solution based on negotiations” with the regime’s two great adversaries are insincere.

Fortunately, President Trump does not seem to be giving any serious consideration to Iran’s silly offer. Last week, a reporter asked, “What might make you have the desire to do another strike on Iran?” (The answer is painfully obvious — a revival of Iran’s nuclear weapons program — but perhaps the reporter is in the habit of asking questions to which she knows the answer.)

In response, Trump declined even to engage the idea of sidelining America’s most important piece of leverage, responding, “I hope we’re not going to have to do that. I can’t imagine wanting to do that. I can’t imagine them wanting to do that. They want to meet. They want to work something out.” As for America, Trump already achieved the objective of taking Iran’s nuclear threat off the table, and he wouldn’t be afraid to do it again.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Whitewashing Anti-Israel Campus Protests

750 tons of Iranian weapons bound for Houthis intercepted, CENTCOM says Source: CBS News

RELATED VIDEO: Farahanipour Vs. Yaghoubian: Is the Iran Conflict Similar to Iraq and Afghanistan?

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Trump the dealmaker emerges from Israel-Iran war looking more powerful than ever

Trump singlehandedly started and stopped a major Middle East war over a span of less than two weeks. But will his heavy handed approach to diplomacy backfire on America? 

A lot has happened since I last posted on June 19. You might say I got bogged down in the fog of war. I needed time to process the onslaught of information and misinformation. Sort my thoughts.

If you are given to knee-jerk support for Israel or Iran, do not bother reading this article. It’s meant for rationale people not given to hasty or emotional conclusions.

I hope to give a big picture overview of what the world looks like from 30,000 feet above, doing my best to put my own biases aside and look at things objectively in the wake of the Israel-Iran war and U.S. involvement to date.

Let’s start by saying that, for good or for bad, Donald Trump has emerged in the war’s aftermath appearing to be the most powerful man in the world.

Why do I say this? Trump singlehandedly started and stopped a major Middle East war over a span of less than two weeks. He even named it. He called it the “12-Day War.” Think about that. Who else could pull that off?

Trump admitted he was fully briefed and fully aware of Israel’s plans to attack Iran and he gave them the greenlight to launch the attack, which they did on June 13.

On Saturday, June 21, Trump unleashed the U.S. Air Force to intervene in the war and attack Iran’s three nuclear sites. There are conflicting reports about how successful that attack was in eliminating Iran’s nuclear program, but Trump and his Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, both maintain it was totally destroyed. They actually used the word “obliterated.”

Yet, military analysts say it’s not possible to get a full damage assessment in less than 30 days. Trump and Hegseth seem to be saying that the damage was devastating, irreparable, and we should believe that just because they said it.

Then there’s the question of whether Iran even still had its enriched uranium at the sites Trump ordered bombed with a massive bunker-buster payload dropped by B2 bombers. They claim to have moved it all out to a hidden location well before Trump’s bombing raid.

Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), says the agency can’t locate Iran’s nearly 900 pounds of potentially enriched uranium after the U.S. airstrikes on the Fordow complex.

Maybe Trump will turn out to be right. Maybe he did obliterate it. But it’s simply too early to know and Trump’s angry response to those who question him gives off bad optics. Makes it look like he’s got something to hide

Then, after intervening on Israel’s behalf and ruffling the feathers of the America-first wing of the GOP, led by Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Trump suddenly pivoted away from the neocon position of getting involved in another country’s war and returned to his position as the peacemaking non-interventionist.

In a post to his Truth Social platform Monday morning, Trump teased the possibility that he may have become a neocon convert and was now open to “regime change” in Tehran, only to flip back Monday evening, when he again turned on a dime and announced he’d demanded a ceasefire.

By Tuesday morning, he lashed out angrily at Israel for violating his ceasefire demands, and by golly the Israelis seemed to fall into line after that and obey Trump’s order to call off all further bombing missions. It’s been quiet ever since in Tehran.

Just when we thought Trump might be a Bush in disguise, he turned like a chameleon back into his old America-first self.

Let’s face it. It’s hard to pin Trump down. This man seems to be able to wiggle out of tight spots with Houdini-like skills.

I don’t believe the Q nonsense about him playing 4D chess, but I do see how Trump uses elements of deception and unpredictability to his political advantage.

Yesterday he’s Israel’s biggest advocate. Today he’s scolding them for not obeying his commands.

Yesterday he said regime change for Iran might not be a bad idea. Today he says that was never his goal.

Trump deceived Iran into thinking he wanted a negotiated settlement to the nuclear issue when in fact Trump admitted the Israeli attack had long been planned with his full approval.

Trump deceived Israel into thinking he would be on their side to the end, to the point of doing a regime change in Iran. Despite his brief teasing tweet, Trump later said he was never interested in regime change.

This subterfuge has helped Trump get his way to date, but you have to wonder if in the long run it won’t be his undoing. At some point, he ends up with a credibility problem. His word will be completely devoid of any meaning, because no one will know if it’s his actual position or just a decoy, a set up for what will later be an opposite stance. At some point, global leaders are going to get tired of being played. Let your yes be yes and your no be no.

One thing is for certain. Trump does not respect the sovereignty of other nation states. He’s the boss and he makes this clear. He likes to set deadlines and give ultimatums, all against the backdrop of military threats. He tells other nations’ leaders very publicly what they better do to make him “happy” and what they better not do to make him “unhappy.” Unhappiness may lead to “terrible consequences.” He loves drama.

If Trump continues to violate nations’ sovereignty, I can see a day when a coalition of nations will reach the point where they get fed up with Trump’s dramatic, almost theatrical approach, and conspire against him with the goal of beating him at his own game. Say one thing and do another.

My second observation is that the First Amendment is in danger under Trump, just as it was under Biden. That’s because Trump, like Biden, is a divider who incites and infuriates Americans on both sides of the political spectrum.

Trump supporters who have spoken critically of Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites have been viciously accused by other Trump supporters of being “anti-Israel,” “anti-Semitic” or even “anti-American.”

Is this true? For sure, some may be anti-Israel, but the majority of MAGA voters who railed against Trump’s decision to intervene in the war are not anti-Israel. They would call themselves anti-Israel First. They believe strongly in the concept of America-First and don’t believe it’s a good idea to spend $150 million or more for the U.S. Air Force to conduct a bombing mission on behalf of a foreign power, whether that be Israel or anyone else.

You can agree or disagree with the America-Firsters, but they have the right to their opinion without being accused of being “anti-American” or “anti-Israel.” By saying “anti-American,” you suggest that your opponent is treasonous. That’s rarely a good idea if the goal is to maintain a semblance of a peaceful society. You get the feeling some on the left and the right would like America to lurch toward civil war.

Many America-Firsters believe it is perfectly OK to sell defensive weapons to Israel and provide it with intelligence, but they don’t believe it’s wise to get directly entangled in kinetic warfare with Israel’s enemies. They believe this is a dangerous and potentially catastrophic scenario, likely to draw in Russia and/or China, resulting in World War III.

The Iranian regime, whether you like it or hate it, has the backing of powerful allies in Russia and China, and Russian President Vladimir Putin made it clear after meeting with Iran’s president Sunday that he would stand behind his ally in any way he could, short of direct military intervention. This presumably may have included backing Iran’s plan to block the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which 70 percent of the world’s oil and liquid natural gas flow.

I don’t believe Trump wanted to risk the consequences of shutting off that waterway, so he quickly negotiated a ceasefire.

Some of the more energetic pro-Israel types are livid with Trump for stopping the war before Israel was able to “finish the job.”

But if finishing the job includes a regime change, the war could have gone on for many more weeks, if not months, and risked the involvement of U.S. troops.

And I’m not convinced Israel was making much progress in finishing the job on its own, at least not relative to the amount of munitions it has expended. I know we conservatives were fed a lot of reports about the “collapsing” Islamic regime, but I believe this was largely propaganda.

Israel has to fire off two interceptors for each incoming Iranian missile, and from the reports I’ve seen, Israel only has another couple of weeks worth of interceptors before its Iron Dome is finished. According to military analyst Col. Douglas MacGregor, it will take two years to fully replenish those depleted interceptors.

So, if Israel continued this war another two weeks, it would be left extremely vulnerable to enemy missile fire. Iran exposed the Iron Dome as basically a sieve, with its hit rate falling from 90 percent at the outset of the war to about 60 percent after 10-straight days of shooting at incoming missiles. Given that simple math, how long before other Islamic nations decided to join Iran in the missile barrage?

Israel has already received more damage to its major cities of Tel Aviv, Be’er Sheba and Haifa, than anyone ever thought possible. At least 28 Israelis have been killed and approximately 3,000 injured. Infrastructure damaged.

BiBi Netanyahu was beginning to see the writing on the wall.

According to Col. MacGregor, there’s a good possibility that Netanyahu asked Trump to call off the war and negotiate a ceasefire.

The question is how long will it last? Will the two sides resume the war as soon as they are able to replenish their arsenals?

Will Iran be able to resume its nuclear enrichment program? If it does, it will likely be much more secret about it and much more likely to use it against an Israeli regime it now sees as an aggressive threat to its existence.

In other words, this whole action has been the equivalent of kicking a hornet’s nest and opening Pandora’s Box. Trump and Netanyahu are responsible for that and will have to deal with the ramifications, whether that’s next week, next month, or next year. In short, this war isn’t over. And Israel is in some ways much more vulnerable, because Iran has crushed the mystique of invincibility that surrounded Israel and its Iron Dome. It is penetrable for any nation with a large stock of advanced missiles. We’ve seen the ease with which Iran’s hypersonic missiles have come crashing down on Israel’s cities.

The reports about Israel establishing air dominance over Iran by the second day of the war were vastly over-hyped. If that were the case, Iran would not have been able to continuously launch deadly missiles at the Jewish state.

And this much is also true: The West’s military-industrial complex cannot keep up with that of Russia-China-North Korea when it comes to churning out munitions. They can do it faster and cheaper. Translation: the longer the war dragged on, the greater the chances that the advantage was going to shift from Israel to Iran. You can’t win a war strictly on air power, and Israel knows this. At some point, you will have to send in troops. And the West simply doesn’t have the troops or the ability to restock its munitions right now to carry on a protracted war with Russia-China-Iran.

Given these facts, it would behoove Mr. Trump to pursue a foreign policy based more on respect for national sovereignty that is less given to intrigue and emotional outbursts. These outbursts, whether warranted or not, give the perception of an unstable leader who cannot make up his mind from one day to the next what he wants to do. This is not good for America or the world.

©2025 . All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLES:

President Trump Kept 30 Years of Broken Promises

President Trump Cut Through the Noise

RELATED VIDEO: HISTORY LESSON: These Former Presidents Ordered Strikes Without Congressional Approval


Please visit Leo’s Newsletter substack.

Iran Is Not Iraq, the American Raid Is Not a War

West Point Professor John Spencer takes issue with all those pundits and self-proclaimed security experts who insist that the American bombing of three Iranian nuclear sites is akin to the war we waged against Iran for eight years, and, they warn us, is leading us inexorably into another costly “forever war.” Spencer explains all the ways that the comparison fails to hold. “No, US strikes on Iran are not the start of a new ‘forever war’ in the Middle East – opinion,” by John Spencer, Jerusalem Post, June 23, 2025:

We are hearing it again. From the random comedian turned geopolitical analyst, the podcast influencer, and the back seat foreign policy expert. “Remember Iraq,” they say. “Forever war.”

As if that one phrase ends the conversation. The uninformed reflex is to think of years of troop deployments, endless insurgencies, wasted lives, and strategic quagmires. The instinct is understandable. But it risks misreading the moment we are in. Because Iran is not Iraq. It is not Afghanistan. And this is not the same war.

Israel and the United States are not talking about regime change. That is not the mission. The mission is clear and limited. It is to irreversibly destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons program. That is it. Not to occupy Tehran. Not to rebuild Iran’s government. Not to democratize the Middle East. The goal is singular: to stop the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism from acquiring the most dangerous weapon on earth.

Many invoke Iraq as a cautionary tale. I was on the ground as an American soldier, sent on missions to find those exact weapons of mass destruction. They were not there. The United States invaded Iraq based on intelligence assessments that turned out to be catastrophically wrong. There were no active WMD programs, yet that claim became the justification for war. But the greatest failure came after Baghdad fell. The mission shifted from regime removal to vague, open-ended nation building, with no clear plan and no unified political strategy.

Then came one of the most damaging decisions in modern US history. The Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the entire Iraqi military, sending hundreds of thousands of trained soldiers home without jobs, income, or direction. At the same time, a sweeping de-Ba’athification policy purged virtually every experienced civil servant from government, not for war crimes or corruption, but for their affiliation with a ruling party they had often joined just to survive professionally.

These moves collapsed Iraq’s governing institutions overnight and left a vacuum that was immediately filled by chaos, insurgency, and extremist groups. The failure was not in the use of force, but in what came after—a rushed deconstruction of a functioning state with no viable plan to rebuild it.

The intelligence in the lead-up to Iraq was thin, ambiguous, and in some cases outright fabricated. A single CIA source, later discredited, claimed Saddam Hussein had restarted biological weapons programs. The infamous claim that Iraq had sought uranium yellowcake from Africa was based on forged documents. Analysts pointed to aluminum tubes as possible centrifuge components, even after the Department of Energy and other experts dismissed the theory.

Much of the intelligence was politicized, cherry-picked, and presented with far more confidence than it deserved. Conspiracy and historical revisionism have since claimed that the government intentionally lied. But it is far more likely that a combination of fear, urgency, and human error in the wake of September 11 led to a cascade of bad assumptions, institutional groupthink, and confirmation bias.

That is not the case with Iran. The IAEA has hard data, not vague suspicion. It has verified uranium enriched to 83.7 percent. It has documented missing stockpiles and hidden facilities. The only historical comparison is not Iraq in 2003, but Iraq in 1981, when Israel destroyed the Osirak reactor before Saddam could complete his program. The world later saw that act for what it was: a necessary preemptive strike that likely prevented a future disaster. The situation with Iran today is even more urgent….

It is important to realize that other presidents before Trump have used military force without prior congressional authorization, in Syria, in Libya, in Grenada. He was only following their precedent. His security officials had determined that Iran was within a week of being able to produce a single nuclear weapon, and he could not wait for the long process of obtaining, after heated and lengthy debate, congressional approval of an attack on Iran’s three most important nuclear sites.

Those who want to score political points against Trump accuse him of leading America into one more of those “forever wars,” like the eight-year war in Iraq and the twenty-year war in Afghanistan. Not at all. This was a single raid by American bombers (and Tomahawk missiles), lasting only twenty-five minutes. That raid does not constitute a “war.” No American boots were, or will be, on the ground. There are no plans to change the regime, though of course such a change would be welcomed in Washington. Those who are claiming that we are now on a slippery slope to a full-scale war with Iran that could last many years, and involve huge occupation forces, are simply trying to scare us into refraining from any more attacks, should Iran now “retaliate” for the June 21 raid. This is not something Trump is prepared to do. He has already warned Iran not to harm a single American soldier or civilian, or else face terrible consequences. But this, too, will not amount to the “forever war” we are being warned about.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump the dealmaker emerges from Israel-Iran war looking more powerful than ever

President Trump Kept 30 Years of Broken Promises

President Trump Cut Through the Noise

Russian official admits Iran working on nuclear weapons, ‘future production of nuclear weapons will continue’

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

On Israel-Iran War, Trump Administration Finds Itself Playing Diplomatic Chess

One of the foremost tools in the president’s belt is his peerless platform to persuade — what President Teddy Roosevelt called “such a bully [that is, ‘superb’] pulpit.” Some presidents — Joe Biden, for example — never know how to fill the pulpit, often seeing themselves as victims of public opinion rather than shapers of it. But epoch-shaping presidents succeed in hammering out a vision that brings public opinion along with their agenda.

On Israel’s war with Iran, President Trump is striving to be the latter type — both in the U.S. and overseas. Recognizing that — except for committed partisans — neither the world nor the American public has settled into a hardened opinion of the conflict, Trump is working to shape that perception. A prudent smith knows to strike while the iron is hot.

On Monday, Trump made waves at the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, when he refused to sign onto a draft statement about the Israel-Iran conflict. The draft “called for both sides to protect civilians and for tight monitoring of Iran’s nuclear facilities,” according to The Telegraph. The other members of the G7 — Canada, the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, and Japan — all agreed to the statement. But Trump insisted that Iran not be allowed to perform any uranium enrichment.

Perhaps surprisingly, given Trump’s rocky history with international leaders, the American president got his way. In the final statement, the G7 leaders affirmed “that Israel has a right to defend itself” and that “Iran is the principal source of regional instability and terror.” The call for both sides to protect civilians was modified to “affirm[ing] the importance of the protection of civilians,” without insinuating a fault on Israel’s part. The statement was also “clear that Iran can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Having bent the heads of the world’s economic powerhouses to his will, Trump jetted back to Washington, D.C. a day early, canceling meetings with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, to monitor war developments from the Situation Room. “I have to be back,” he told reporters. “You probably see what I see, and I have to be back as soon as I can.” After all, the U.S. has numerous bases and troops in range of Iranian missiles.

But Trump did far more than monitor the situation. At 6:30 p.m., he posted on Truth Social, “Iran should have signed the ‘deal’ I told them to sign. What a shame, and waste of human life. Simply stated, IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON. I said it over and over again! Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!”

Trump’s concluding sentence might seem at first like a non-sequitur. But the background for the statement came as Israel was warning Iranian civilians that it would strike “very significant targets, strategic targets, targets of the regime and infrastructure” in Tehran on Tuesday. In other words, it served to warn Iran that more severe Israeli airstrikes are yet to come.

The next morning, Trump added further commentary on his return to the White House. “Publicity seeking President Emmanuel Macron, of France, mistakenly said that I left the G7 Summit, in Canada, to go back to D.C. to work on a ‘cease fire’ between Israel and Iran,” he wrote. “Wrong! He has no idea why I am now on my way to Washington, but it certainly has nothing to do with a Cease Fire. Much bigger than that. Whether purposely or not, Emmanuel always gets it wrong. Stay Tuned!”

How mysterious! Trump certainly knows how to build suspense. Jabs at Macron aside, the world must be wondering what Trump could be working on that is “much bigger” than a ceasefire.

Perhaps the best insight into Trump’s tease involves a look in the rearview mirror, specifically to the overlooked coincidences preceding Israel’s strike on Iran.

Last Thursday offered a curious confluence of events. First, in a motion brought by the U.S. and European allies, the IAEA board ruled that Iran was not in compliance with its treaty obligations to submit to oversight of its nuclear stockpiles, provoking a belligerent response from Iran. Second, Trump said Thursday marked the 60th day of negotiations with Iran on April 12; in March, he gave Iran an ultimatum to reach a nuclear deal in 60 days or face the consequences. Finally, that night, Israel attacked.

It would be a striking coincidence if all these events occurred independently of one another in 24 hours. In fact, it is far more likely that they did not. Recall that the Trump administration was behind the IAEA vote at its June meeting, and the Trump administration was behind both the 60-day ultimatum and the scheduling of each diplomatic meeting. As recently as May 28, Trump told reporters that he was warning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. But Trump has shown nothing but support since Israel’s attack began Thursday night.

The close proximity of these swift changes raises questions: did the Trump administration plan it this way? Was Israel in on the plan beforehand, or did they simply take advantage of the moment?

Planned or not, Thursday’s events gave Israel the best possible diplomatic cover to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Not only had Iran exceeded the White House’s 60-day deadline, but it also received its first-ever formal rebuke by U.N. nuclear inspectors — to which Iran responded with an angry snarl. How often can Israel legitimately claim that the U.N. is on its side about anything? The result is, Iran was exposed for the irresponsible rogue actor that it is; in fact, it irrevocably cast itself as the bad guy.

If the Trump administration did orchestrate the timing, then it prepared the world to look more favorably on Israel’s assault when it finally came.

Israel “clearly couldn’t wait any longer for their own good,” said Senator Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.). “Nobody is on the clock quite like Israel when it comes to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran. So, I don’t blame them a bit for doing it. I’m grateful to see President Trump’s strong support for it.”

“I’m equally grateful,” Cramer continued, “to see that we haven’t risked any American lives in the effort.” This raises another aspect of the president’s calculation: that some elements of his “America First” base are resistant to drawing our nation into the war.

Thus far, the Trump administration has effectively argued that the U.S. has taken no part in strikes against Iran, although it has helped Israel shoot down incoming missiles. This — along with Iran’s preoccupation with more pressing issues — has spared American bases from any imminent attacks. In fact, Trump is playing “good cop” to Israel’s “bad cop,” offering to resume negotiations with the Iranian regime if it becomes willing to reach a deal.

But this phase in the relationship may not endure forever. The U.S. military is moving additional equipment closer to the region. Two dozen tanker planes relocated from North America to Europe this week, and the U.S.S. Nimitz carrier strike group is racing from the Pacific theater towards the Middle East. As President Trump shuffles pieces around the board, the most important question in chess looms in the forefront: what’s the next move?

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


Like what you’re reading? Donate to The Washington Stand! From now until June 30, your gift will be doubled to fuel bold, biblically-based reporting.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

6 Reasons Why Israel’s Strike against Iran Was Justified

As the world processes reports of Israeli airstrikes against the Iranian regime’s military and nuclear weapons program, Christians should think carefully about how to respond. On one hand, we lament the loss of human life that wars bring as we follow our Lord in affirming, “blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9). On the other hand, we also learn from Jesus that “wars and rumors of wars” (Matthew 24:6) will characterize this fallen world until he returns.

Recognizing that there sometimes is “a time for war” (Ecclesiastes 3:8), Christian theologians since the fourth century have developed universal principles for Just War — that is, defining the conditions under which war is justified. “Just War Theory actually goes back to [the fourth-century theologian] Augustine… who kind of articulated some of these principles,” said David Closson, director of FRC’s Center for Biblical Worldview, “and it’s been expanded upon since then.”

In a March interview on “Washington Watch,” Closson outlined six principles of Just War Theory:

  • First, “There needs to be a just cause. You can’t just go to war for any reason. … This rules out a war of aggression from the start.”
  • Second, “There has to be right intention. A nation goes to war to end grave injustice or to restore peace. You can’t just go to war because you don’t like your enemy, you don’t like the nation next door. You can’t go simply because of vengeance.”
  • Third, “A just war needs to be waged by a legitimate authority. This would rule out individual actors or groups.”
  • Fourth, “War should be a last resort. … Christians should never be the people itching to go to war. You exhaust all options before you think about war.”
  • Fifth, “There would need to be proportionate objectives — all things considered, in terms of loss of life that might be lost or money that might be lost. … The things that you might lose in a war can outweigh what you’re trying to remedy.”
  • Sixth, “There needs to be a reasonable chance of success. I would point people to Luke chapter 14.” In describing the cost of discipleship, Jesus uses this metaphor, “Or what king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace” (Luke 14:31-32).

These principles provide a framework for analyzing Israel’s airstrikes against the Iranian regime through a biblical worldview. Because Israel’s strike meets each criterion, these principles also provide six reasons why Israel’s strike against Iran was justified, reordered below:

Just Cause: Self-Defense against Annihilation

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi complained in a letter to the U.N. that Israel’s airstrikes “amount to a declaration of war against the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

But Israel’s war with Iran did not begin on Friday morning. Israel’s war with Iran began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas — supported by and subservient to Iran — launched a surprise attack against Israel, killing more than 1,200 people, injuring thousands, and capturing more than 200.

Immediately after Hamas’s October 7 attack, Israel was thrown into a multi-front war against Iran’s extensive network of terrorist proxies in Gaza (Hamas), Lebanon (Hezbollah), and Yemen (the Houthis), as well as smaller outfits fighting from Judea, Samaria, Syria, and Iraq. On October 1, 2024, Iran itself launched missiles at Israel in response to Israeli forces invading Hezbollah-controlled territory in Lebanon.

While not every front in the war sees constant fighting, they are not random or disconnected. The Iranian regime seeks Israel’s annihilation as a necessary implication of its Islamist ideology, and both Israel and Iran understand this genocidal intent. In recent years, Iran has grown steadily closer to obtaining the weapons it needs to turn its ambition into reality.

“For decades, the tyrants of Tehran have brazenly, openly called for Israel’s destruction,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after the airstrikes. “They’ve backed up their genocidal rhetoric with a program to develop nuclear weapons.”

Nearly two years ago, Iran and its proxies attacked Israel, with the avowed purpose of destroying the nation. Israel has deftly beaten back the lesser attacks. But, unless the Israeli government wanted Iranian nukes to destroy its cities, it had to strike Iran itself.

Right Intention: Crippling Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Program

This points to Israel’s intention to carry out the strikes. Israel’s purpose was not to seize territory, take revenge on enemies, or gain worldly glory. As Netanyahu explained it, Israel carried out “a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival” by destroying its nuclear weapons program.

Thus, Israel did not bomb cities, civilian infrastructure, or ports. They bombed nuclear enrichment facilities, nuclear scientists, and (to further ensure their safety) the generals who would likely mount a counterattack.

Proportionate Objectives: Strikes against Legitimate Military Targets

These actions also fulfill the Just War principle of proportionality. This principle does not envision a sort of eye-for-eye equality in strikes, as the Biden administration often conceived it. Rather, it envisions means that are proportional to the ends. Israel sought to protect itself from a nuclear Holocaust by crippling Iran’s nuclear weapon program (it would obviously like to escape a conventional missile barrage, too). Therefore, Israel struckelements of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, along with related defenses, and the generals who might oversee a retaliatory strike.

Reasonable Chance of Success: Israel Previously Devastated Iran’s Air Defenses

Israel had ample reason to believe its airstrikes would be successful because it carried out preliminary strikes only months earlier. On October 26, 2024 (weeks after Iran’s missile barrage against Israel), the Israeli air force put on a dominant performance in Iranian airspace, demolishing Iran’s anti-aircraft defenses, missile and drone production sites, and other targets. Israeli planes prowled the sky for hours, carrying out 140 sorties across Iran, then returning home with no casualties.

The effect of this previous strike is that it left Iran vulnerable to future air attacks, particularly against its nuclear weapons program (Israel did not attack Iran’s nuclear weapons program in October due to intense pressure from the Biden administration).

“Israel will be able to operate there freely because they don’t have an anti-aircraft shield,” explained Caroline Glick, now a senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “If we attack again, will be able to just hover over any city, basically, in Iran that we need to, in order to attack the targets that we need to take out — whether it’s oil infrastructure, whether it’s nuclear infrastructure, or regime targets.”

Legitimate Authority: Netanyahu Is the Legal Head of Israel’s Government

Speaking of Netanyahu, his position automatically fulfills this next principle of just war. The prime minister is the legitimate head of the Israeli government. He leads a coalition government that controls a majority of seats in the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset, which is popularly elected according to the Israeli constitution. This government, in turn, exercises authority over the Israeli military through the War Cabinet. Thus, the strikes were ordered by Israel’s legitimate authority.

This may seem obvious or overly simplistic, but it serves to highlight the contrast between Israel and most of its enemies. Iran’s terrorist proxies — Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis — are not legitimate authorities of nation states. They are terrorist militias that illegally seized territory by force. This is significant because, by definition, lawful authorities have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force, making all the attacks of these groups inherently illegal. And all these groups have taken their marching orders from the Iranian regime (which may be the legitimate ruler of its own territory, but not the territory of other nations).

Last Resort: All Diplomatic Efforts Failed to Dissuade Iran from Pursuing a Nuclear Weapon

Israel’s military strike on Iran’s uranium enrichment sites and other elements of its covert nuclear weapons came after all possible diplomatic efforts failed to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon. Even if they could not know precisely how much time was on the clock, Israel knew that time was running out, so they threw this buzzer-beater.

Iran has “taken steps that it has never taken before to weaponize” its rapidly growing stockpile of enriched uranium, said Netanyahu. “If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time — it could be a year, it could be within a few months. This is a clear and present danger to Israel’s very survival.”

The issue came to a head on Thursday, when the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officially ruled that Iran had not complied with its treaty requirements to submit to external oversight of its nuclear stockpiles. Such a ruling could reinstate severe U.N. sanctions against Iran. In response to this step — the diplomatic nuclear option, if you will — Iran furiously announced plans to accelerate its uranium enrichment by opening a new facility. It also threatened that, if sanctioned, it would withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In 55 years, the only country to withdraw from the NPT is North Korea, which did so when it developed its first nuclear weapons.

“Over the past several decades, Western powers have tried to avoid this eventuality through sanctions against Iran, endless diplomacy, Barack Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal, and the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign of Trump’s first term,” wrote the National Review editors. “Multiple acts of sabotage and other covert activities by Israel set back Iran’s program at various points. But ultimately, Iran would not give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and Israelis had no choice but to act.”

This is, perhaps, the most debated point. State Department spokesman Ned Price called Israel’s attack “premature” because “diplomacy had not run its course.” But American diplomatic efforts have also not changed Iran’s position, which is that it has the right to enrich as much uranium as it wants, to levels far beyond what is necessary for civilian nuclear purposes.

On Thursday, Trump wrote that he had given “Iran chance after chance to make a deal,” and he warned the regime to strike a deal now or else there would be “much more to come” from Israel.

Conclusion

The fact that war is an unavoidable feature of our fallen world does not mean Christians should be fond of it. Even just wars, as outlined above, are permissible only under narrow conditions, as a last resort, by the proper authority.

By contrast, Christians are entrusted with “the ministry of reconciliation,” writes Paul, “that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).

Christians should act and pray for peace, “because God can do what man cannot,” said FRC President Tony Perkins. “He makes wars cease to the end of the earth; He breaks the bow and cuts the spear in two; He burns the chariot in the fire” (Psalm 46:9). Sometimes, God even destroys not-yet-made nuclear missiles by means of other weapons.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The View from the Situation Room as Israel Lit Up Iran

U.S. Delivers Bunker Busting Munitions to Israel for Attack on Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility

Intelligence, Subterfuge Aided Israeli Strike on Iran

RELATED VIDEO: Israel Wipes Out IRGC Leaders As Iranians Celebrate on Tousi TV

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


Like what you’re reading? Donate to The Washington Stand! From now until June 30, your gift will be doubled to fuel bold, biblically-based reporting.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Israel Launches Airstrikes against Iranian Nuclear Sites, Military Targets

In the early hours of Friday morning local time, Israel launched a series of deadly “preemptive strikes” against Iran, targeting military leaders and the nuclear refinement sites at the center of unfinished negotiations between Iran and the U.S.

Reports began circulating Thursday night (U.S. time) of explosions in Iran’s capital city of Tehran, with video footage depicting smoke in the air and fires in the distance. Israel’s defense ministry confirmed shortly afterwards that it was conducting a series of preemptive strikes against Iran, following reports that the country’s nuclear refinement facilities could possibly produce enough enriched uranium to develop nearly a dozen nuclear warheads.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that Israel had attacked Iran in a move he dubbed “Operation Rising Lion.” He explained that the airstrikes were part of “a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival.” Netanyahu continued, “This operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat. For decades, the tyrants of Tehran have brazenly, openly called for Israel’s destruction. They’ve backed up their genocidal rhetoric with a program to develop nuclear weapons.” He posited that Iran has “taken steps that it has never taken before to weaponize” the enriched uranium Iran is suspected to have amassed. “If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time — it could be a year, it could be within a few months,” the prime minister added. He declared, “This is a clear and present danger to Israel’s very survival.”

Iran’s state-run media outlet, the Islamic Republic News Agency, reported that Israeli strikes had succeeded in killing the head of Iran’s armed forces, Major General Hossein Salami, along with several other military commanders and at least two civilians employed as nuclear scientists. Israel Defense Forces (IDF) later confirmed that Salami and two other high-ranking Iranian military leaders were “all eliminated in the Israeli strikes across Iran by more than 200 fighter jets.” Immediately after the “preemptive strikes,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz reportedly declared a state of emergency in Israel, in anticipation of retaliation from Iran. IDF spokesperson Brigadier General Effie Defrin confirmed in a video statement that Israel was targeting Iran’s nuclear development sites.

After withdrawing most U.S. forces and civilians from the area prior to the attack, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement asserting that the U.S. was not party to the strikes against Iran and warning the regime not to erroneously retaliate against American forces or installations. “Tonight, Israel took unilateral action against Iran. We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region. Israel advised us that they believe this action is necessary for its self-defense,” Rubio wrote. He added, “President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-N.D.) largely echoed Rubio’s statements in his own press release. “Today, Israel has determined that it must take decisive action to defend the Israeli people. The United States Senate stands ready to work with President Trump and with our allies in Israel to restore peace in the region and, first and foremost, to defend the American people from Iranian aggression, especially our troops and civilians serving overseas,” Thune wrote. He added, “Iran should heavily consider the consequences before considering any action against Americans in the region.”

State Department spokesman Ned Price told CNN that Israel’s attack was “premature” since “diplomacy had not run its course. There was a window in which the administration had to potentially find a way to a diplomatic off-ramp here.” Price reported that talks with Iran were potentially scheduled to continue into September, at which point the matter would be passed to the United Nations Security Council if the U.S. had not reached a satisfactory agreement with Iran. “That window was not closing today. That window would not close tomorrow. But by undertaking this operation today, Prime Minister Netanyahu has very solidly shut that window,” Price said.

U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff cautioned Republican leaders prior to Israel’s strike that retaliation by Iran could result in a mass casualty event, according to an Axios report. He pointed out that even without nuclear weapons, Iran’s ballistic missile arsenal is “as big of an existential threat” to Israel as the nation’s nuclear potential and may be able to overwhelm Israel’s air defenses.

As The Washington Stand previously noted, the U.S. has been engaged for several months now in negotiations with Iran surrounding the Middle Eastern regime’s capacity to produce nuclear weapons, with the next set of talks scheduled for Sunday. President Donald Trump has repeatedly warned Israel not to attack Iran before the U.S. concludes its negotiations. As recently as Thursday, Trump asked Israel not to strike Iran, saying during a press conference, “I’d much prefer an agreement. As long as I think there is an agreement, I don’t want [Israel] going in… I’d much prefer the friendly route.”

Following the strikes, however, the president posted on Truth Social, “I gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal. I told them, in the strongest of words, to ‘just do it,’ but no matter how hard they tried, no matter how close they got, they just couldn’t get it done.” He said that he had warned Iran that an attack by Israel “would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come — And they know how to use it.”

“Certain Iranian hardliner’s [sic] spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse!” Trump continued. He warned Iran that an agreement with the U.S. would be in the country’s best interest. “There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end. Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire,” he wrote. Trump added, “No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”

According to an Israeli official cited by The Spectator Index, Israel’s campaign against Iran will last at least two weeks.

AUTHOR

S.A. McCarthy

S.A. McCarthy serves as a news writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Iran Threatens U.S. Bases as Israel Strikes Tehran’s Nuclear Facilities

Iran Announces New Nuclear Enrichment Site after IAEA Finds it in Non-Compliance

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2025 Family Research Council.


Like what you’re reading? Donate to The Washington Stand! From now until June 30, your gift will be doubled to fuel bold, biblically-based reporting.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

President Trump: U.S. Nuclear Agreement with Iran WON’T Allow Any Uranium Enrichment

Anything else you heard is fake news and deliberate disinformation designed to undermine Trump.

Iran’s entire nuclear program must be dismantled. How much longer will Iran’s leaders be allowed to lie, deceive, stall, and reject U.S offers? Let Israel destroy Iran’s nuclear program.

Will Iran’s Mullahs Use the Bomb?

There is so much smoke around the Iranian Mullahs’ bomb that makes Tehran’s smog feel like a fresh ocean breeze, by comparison. Here is a partial list of views about the Mullahs, their capabilities, and intentions regarding the bomb affair.

The Mullahs:

  • Will never dare to use the bomb, even if they had it. To do so would be suicidal.
  • They are years away from anything resembling a credible bomb, in any quantities.
  • They lack the technological skills needed to make a workable bomb.
  • Don’t have the means of hitting Israel with the bomb, their professed favorite target.
  • Want the bomb for defensive purposes only.
  • Would never hand the bomb over to proxy terrorists.
  • Are using this whole bomb thing as a ploy to rally the populace and survive.
  • Are visionary patriots planning for a future when the oil dries up?
  • Are environmentalists aiming to curb global warming caused by the use of fossil fuels?
  • Are striving to join the nuclear club for its prestige.

And on, and on, and on, goes the litany. I believe, based on facts rather than wishful thinking, that every one of the above assertions, as well as all other similar dismissive arguments, is both false and fraught with danger, because all the above arguments are confounded by various amounts of denial.

Psychological denial is a common quirk of the human mind. People use denial to distort, even refute reality, when accepting it is too threatening to them. Alcoholics are habitual users of denial, a major tranquilizer of the mind. The alcoholic will adamantly deny having any problem with alcohol and continues to drink, even in the face of irrefutable contrary evidence. Denial is resorted to by both individuals and groups, and can be just as deadly for both.

Perhaps the most compelling dismissive argument is that the Mullahs would never dare to use the bomb, since it would be suicidal to do so.

This argument is just as flawed as the rest. The “mutual deterrence” argument may work in state-to-state confrontations. It apparently has worked in the past, and the hope is that it will work in the future. However, the mutual deterrence argument fails when a non-state entity is the adversary. The Mullahs don’t have to lob a bomb at Israel or at anyone else to inflict huge harm. They can pursue their cause of death and destruction by simply providing their killers with dirty bombs in a suitcase. Given the Mullahs’ fanaticism and Machiavellian nature, they would come up with a myriad of clever schemes to achieve their objectives.

Consider dirty bombs. They are easy to make, are portable, can kill as well as make a city uninhabitable, without leaving a “fingerprint.” The Mullahs can go to work, then turn “innocently” to the international community for help-to find a group of rogue radicals, so they claim, who had penetrated their facilities and have made off with a lot of radioactive stuff.

It is not as if events like this have never happened in the past. Deadly stolen radioactive materials have found their way to the black market on several occasions. The world would respond in panic, yet with its usual arthritic sluggishness, searching for the miscreants. Given how clumsy and disorganized the world’s intelligence community is, the prospect of acting expeditiously, much less apprehending the “thieves,” is not very encouraging. This is particularly the case when the Mullahs themselves would have a short leash on the “thieves,” to hide them and deploy them only with the greatest of care.

Iran’s ruling Mullahs are clustered around major factions such as the conservatives, the moderates, and the so-called reformists. Yet, the differences among these factions are tactical rather than strategic. One and all share the same overarching goal of defeating the “Crusader-Zionists” by any and all methods possible; bringing about the “end of the world” Armageddon; and, thereby creating the requisite conditions for the appearance of the Hidden Imam, the Mahdi, to assume his rule of the world.

Therefore, it is “Carteresque” (foolish risk-taking a la Jimmy Carter’s throwing the nation’s lot with the Mullahs during the 1979 Iranian Revolution) to overlook the fact that it is Islam, irrespective of any and all considerations, that poses a deadly threat to the world. Choosing one faction over another is no choice at all.

What is the likelihood that the ruling Mullahs will actually use the bomb? If they remain in power long enough to have it, they are very likely to use it, in one form or another. At the very least, they use the bomb for blackmail and intimidation in the region. Not even the all-out nuclear exchange can be ruled out. Islam is a religion centered on death, with the faithful eyes fixed on the afterlife and its promised eternal pleasures. If the faithful kills, he goes to Allah’s paradise; if he gets killed, he goes to Allah’s paradise.

The Mullahs’ claim that they are pursuing the nuclear program to meet the country’s energy needs could only fool the most gullible-denial type. Why is it that the Mullahs invest nothing at all in stopping the leak of more than six percent of the precious oil they pump out? For every 100 barrels, six barrels of Iran’s irreplaceable national treasure dissipate at the wellhead. Yet, they spend billions of dollars to harness nuclear energy. Just as troubling is the fact that Iran sits on one of the world’s most dangerous earthquake fault lines. Building nuclear plants on sites such as the one in Bushehr is absolute insanity.

Speaking of insanity, Ahmadinejad, the Monkey, comes to mind. He is dismissed as being a zany fanatic who shouldn’t be taken seriously for his bomb-rattling threats. But this type of dismissiveness can prove deadly. Recall that even a multi-billionaire former president of Iran, Rafsanjani, a man seen by many as moderate and a shrewd live-and-let-live type, has publicly announced that a single bomb would finish off Israel while the Muslims would suffer a setback from which it can easily recover.

The Mullahs are proven vicious mass killers. They summarily executed tens of thousands of Iranian dissidents. They had no qualms about sending thousands of children to clear the minefields ahead of their tanks during the 80-89 war with Iraq, and they have thousands of “martyrs” brainwashed and prepared to serve as bomb mules to be dispatched to any place in the world.

Sadly, once again, it is the peak of “Me First” time with American politicians. Time and again, we are told by the politically correct “experts” not to worry about Islam posing a threat to our way of life. We are repeatedly lectured that only a very small minority of Muslims are troublemakers who are giving the peaceful masses of Muslims a bad name. We are also informed that the terrorists, who happened to be Muslims, are the disaffected and the young. And not to worry, since as the fire of youth turns to ashes of old age, the rebellious will mellow, as they always have.

In the meantime, the real enemy, Islamofascism, is forging ahead toward its goal of dominating the world.

I have been warning that it is a deadly miscalculation to engage in infighting and sit and wait this emerging catastrophe out. It is little more than an exercise in denial to believe that nothing bad will happen, and that the corrupt, inept Mullahs will likely shoot themselves in the foot instead of wreaking havoc on the world. I also keep pleading that we should forthwith help the Iranian democratic opposition and send the death-bearer Mullahs back to their mosques. It is the free world’s best and urgent option.

What sane person would want to take a chance to wait and see if the mad Mullahs, once they have the bomb, would use it or not?

©2025 . All rights reserved.