After Trump’s strategic strike about the nuclear facilities of Iran,
Twelve days of air strikes, rocket exchanges and brinksivity between Israel and Iran have ended in a precarious cease -the fires. Assembled by the United States, the file temporarily stopped a conflict that threatened to spirit in a regional war with American troops, energy markets and global non -proliferation standards.
Now that the dust has been arranged, the critical question emerges: what was the true purpose of America’s decision to hit Iran’s nuclear infrastructure? And what should our strategic attitude move forward?
The true motive behind the strike
President Trump claimed that the strikes were needed because Iran was “weeks away” from producing a nuclear weapon. In a television on television, he said that Iran could complete a bomb in “a few weeks” if it chose. Pers secretary Karoline Leavitt repeated the urgency: “Iran could produce [a nuclear weapon] In just a few weeks. “
Trump brokers Iran ceases -the -fires as experts say that the arsenal of the regime is crushed, but the threat remains
Nevertheless, director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified in March 2025 that Iran was not building nuclear weapon and had not resumed the development of the nuclear head, despite his stock of enriched uranium. After Trump had publicly contradicted her – “she was wrong,” he said – Gabbard later changed her position to display the concern of the administration and noted that Iran could produce a weapon within a few weeks to months if they decide to complete the meeting. “
In essence, Iran had crossed the nuclear threshold – visited sufficiently enriched uranium to build a bomb – but hadn’t done that. The strike was therefore not intended to neutralize an imminent weapon, but to deny Iran in the short term. It was a preventive move, based on strategy, not in panic.
That calculation was examined undernowed. A leaked Defense Intelligence Agency -Memo suggested that the American strikes may have only “briefly delayed” the nuclear program of Iran – the statement of Trump that it was “erased”. But the CIA, in a statement from director John Ratcliffe, went against that intelligence demonstrates that various important nuclear facilities were destroyed and last years to rebuild. This breathtaking conclusion validates the strategic choice of America and underlined that the operation has inflicted a serious, long -term blow to Iran’s outbreak potential.
No way to peace – only a cold war
Despite chatting about diplomacy, a formal peace between Israel and Iran remains far -fetched. Since 1979 Tehran has refused to recognize Israel’s existence. The regime considers Israel to be illegal and calls for destruction. Israel, in turn, sees Iran as an existential threat, fed by nuclear ambition and a global network of proxies.
This dynamic remains unchanged. During NATO -top, President Trump publicly punished the internal policy of Israel – Prime Minister Netanyahu’s corruption process criticized as a “witch hunt”, pointing to possible reconsideration of military support. This public burglary in Israeli domestic matters emphasizes how deep the influence of the US now extends beyond the battlefield.
Given these deep -rooted positions, the most likely result is not reconciliation but a long -term impasse – Akin for a modern cold war. Proxy screens, cyber attacks and secret operations will probably define in the coming years. Stability will rest on deterrence, not on diplomatic optimism.
The boundaries of peace talks
International actors, especially the UN and EU and are expected to insist on new peace talks and weapon management frameworks. Such a diplomacy is commendable, but the expectations must be tempered.
Iran has already indicated that it will not add IAEA inspections without substantial concessions. Israel insists that he is preventively striking if it detects renewed threats. The most that we can really hope for are temporary measures for building trusting caps, rocket restrictions or localized de-escalation. These are fragile progressions – not real peace treaties.
President Trump has announced that American officials will meet their Iranian counterparts “next week” to discuss nuclear care and regional stability. While the announcement indicates a shift to involvement, the continuous tensions of the administration with the intelligence community – combined with the deep -rooted ideological attitude of Iran – and doubts about the prospects for every permanent diplomatic breakthrough.
Click here for more the opinion of Fox News
A realistic path forward
The best strategic goal now is not peace, but stability. That means a policy of managed inclusion:
- Reinforce: Make it clear that renewed Iranian nuclear activity or proxy aggression will be paid quickly and decisively.
- Preserve regional alliances: Deepening cooperation with Israel, Gulf union and NATO partners for shared intelligence and defense.
- Support silent diplomacy: Keep communication open through intermediaries such as Qatar and Oman to reduce miscalculation.
- Maintaining inspection mechanisms: A limited IAEA -even under compromise, offers critical transparency.
Conclusion
Unlike the first claims, President Trump’s strike was not about ending an immediate nuclear threat, but about denying Iran only a quick way to one. The confirmation of the CIA that Iran’s most important nuclear sites have been destroyed and will take years to rebuild this strategy.
Click here to get the Fox News app
Peace with Iran remains a distant dream. Instead, America has to brace itself for a long -term, asymmetrical competition – powered by Proxy wrestings, cyber tensions and ideological rivalry. It can hold -the bars, but the war is not over.
Real victory is not in treaties or tops, but in steady deterrence, disciplined diplomacy and strategic patience with clear eyes.
