When the United States and Israel attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities last summer, I argued that the operation was deliberate—and not reckless. The June 2025 attacks on Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan were intended to deny Tehran a short-term escape route and restore deterrence without plunging America into another open-ended war in the Middle East.
The goal was clear: disrupt the program, buy time and strengthen Washington’s influence.
Later intelligence reports suggested the damage was significant, but not permanent. Iran’s nuclear program was reversed – not eliminated. That distinction was important then, and even more important now.
Today we are at another crucial moment.
President Donald Trump has pumped significant U.S. military power into the Persian Gulf — aircraft carrier strike groups, fighter jets and support assets — amid renewed nuclear tensions. This is not symbolic. It is a serious deterrent posture, intended to protect U.S. forces and signal resolve to Tehran.
That structure is legitimate. It strengthens credibility. It reduces the chance of miscalculations.
But alongside this attitude, we are now hearing dramatic claims that Iran could be “about a week away” from producing weapons-grade uranium.
US POSITIONS AIRCRAFT, STRIKE PLATFORMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST AS IRAN TALKS A SHIFT TO OMAN
Americans deserve clarity about what that statement means.
Enrichment levels and a deployable nuclear weapon are not the same. Moving uranium from 60% enrichment to 90% weapons material is technically faster than enriching it from scratch. But building a usable nuclear weapon requires additional steps: armament work, warhead integration, testing and a viable delivery system.
Language suggesting that Iran is “a week away” shrinks the political space between deterrence and kinetic action. It conditions the audience for urgency. It compresses timelines. And there is a risk that technical possibilities turn into perceived inevitability.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran has uranium enriched to around 60% – a deeply worrying development. But there is no public confirmation that Tehran has assembled a nuclear device or carried out any verified armaments.
AYATOLLAH’S ARSENAL VS. US FIREPOWER: IRAN’S 4 TOP THREATS AND HOW WE FIGHT BACK
That distinction is not academic. It’s strategic.
We have experienced what happens when the intelligence community’s worst-case assessments harden into political certainty. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq based on the belief that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Those claims turned out to be incorrect. The fallout has cost thousands of American lives and reshaped U.S. foreign policy for a generation.
No one should invoke this parallel. But we shouldn’t ignore it either.
FORMER REP MTG CLAIMS AMERICANS DO NOT WANT WAR AGAINST IRAN
If Iran has restored enrichment cascades beyond what was damaged in 2025, present the evidence.
If inspectors have imposed restrictions or been banned, say so.
If armament activity has resumed, show proof.
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S IRAN BUILDING MIRRORS 2003 IRAQ SCALES AS TENSION ESCALATES
What we see publicly so far is the risk of enrichment – and not the confirmed production of bombs.
That does not make Tehran benign. Iran’s enrichment levels are dangerous. The expansion of ballistic missiles and the proxy network are destabilizing the region. The regime continues to challenge American interests and those of our allies.
The deterrence must be credible.
KHANNA AND MASSIE threaten to force a vote on Iran as the prospect of a US attack looms
President Trump is right to position power in the Gulf. This force posture protects American forces and sends the message that the United States will not tolerate aggression. Strategic ambiguity can serve a purpose in diplomacy.
But language suggesting that Iran is “a week away” shrinks the political space between deterrence and kinetic action.
It conditions the audience for urgency. It compresses timelines. And there is a risk that technical possibilities turn into perceived inevitability.
ISRAELIANS KEEP SUITCASES PACKED AND READY AS TRUMP WEIGHS POTENTIAL IRAN STRIKE DECISION
If the administration believes Iran is moving toward a nuclear weapon, the American people deserve a clear, direct statement from the president himself – backed by confirmed intelligence and shared with Congress.
No twist.
No anonymous leaks shaping public perception.
MORNING GLORY: WHAT WILL PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DECIDE TO DO WITH IRAN?
No vague alarm replacing documented facts.
If necessary, the United States can strike. She’s done that before. But military action must be based on verifiable intelligence and a defined strategic objective – not on rhetorical escalation.
A new war in the Middle East would not be surgical or isolated. It would extend across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf States and global energy markets. It would strengthen hardliners in Tehran and test U.S. alliances at a volatile time.
TRUMP SAYS IRAN HAS 15 DAYS TO REALIZE A DEAL OR HAVE AN ‘UNFORTUNATE’ OUTCOME
That does not mean that violence should never be used.
It means that the threshold must be high – and the evidence must be clear.
The American people will support strong action when the threat is real and undeniable. They will not support another war based on ambiguous timelines and worst-case projections.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
We don’t need another war in the Middle East.
And we certainly don’t need another myth about weapons of mass destruction.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
If force becomes necessary, justification must come clearly and directly from the commander-in-chief – backed by hard intelligence, not alarm.
That’s the standard Americans deserve.
CLICK HERE TO ROBERT MAGINNIS
