The US Has Two Paths in Iran. Its Clerics Will Decide Both.
The US has bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, and nobody, inside or outside the White House, can be sure how it will play out. That now depends entirely on the Iranian response and on what was destroyed at the deeply buried nuclear site at Fordow.
For there are two possible paths to American success in the war that Israel cornered President Donald Trump — a man who claimed near-magical powers for ending and preventing wars — into joining. Both will test assumptions about the Islamic Republic's strength and messianic nature, because both are for Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his generals to decide.
The clearest path to success is that Iran's nuclear program has indeed been 'obliterated' and would require years and fortunes to rebuild, neutralizing that toxic issue for the foreseeable future. In this scenario, Iran's leaders may talk Armageddon and 'everlasting' consequences for 'The Great Satan,' but they choose any retaliation against US targets very carefully. Their goal would be to avoid a direct military escalation with the US that they might survive, but at enormous risk and cost. US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made clear on Sunday, during a press conference, that was the hope. He said there were "both public and private messages being directly delivered to the Iranians in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the table.'
Trump's fiercest critics would have to concede that this would be a good outcome, and that his options in any case had become quite limited the day Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered his air force to take out Iran's nuclear program. With Fordow still intact, Iran would remain in possession of the feedstocks and enrichment cascades needed to create weapons-grade fuel. A nuclear breakout would have been far more likely, for never would the case for owning a nuclear deterrent have been clearer.
A second path to victory — at least in the eyes of Netanyahu — would be through a bombing campaign so devastating and targeted in scope that it destabilizes Khamenei and results in a change of regime friendly to the Jewish state and the West. The assumption is that the country would be taken over by the urban opposition, which despises the clerical elite that's run Iran since the 1979 revolution, and has no interest in their country's continued isolation.
With scenarios like these, no wonder so many opponents of American involvement are reaching back to the 2003 US invasion of Iraq for parallels. That, too, was justified by claims of an urgent nuclear threat and the promise of replacing an oppressive regime. The outcome was horrendous.
But for one important aspect, which I'll come to, this isn't like Iraq. Trump wasn't itching for war with Iran, but was dragged into one by Israel. The likelihood of an Iraq-style ground invasion and occupation is approximately zero. The Iranian threat, including possession of an advanced nuclear program, wasn't fabricated. Iran has enriched enough uranium to 60%, a level that has no conceivable civilian use, to make nine warheads. Not even Iran disputes this. The only question is what they intend to do with it and how quickly.
Also, unlike Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Iran does pose an active threat — above all to Israel — through the active organization, funding and arming of mainly proxy assaults, especially since the Hamas terrorist attack of Oct. 7, 2023. Iran isn't only publicly committed to the eradication of the Jewish state, but has persistently taken action to further that goal. I'll leave it to others to parse whether all that justifies Israel's self-defense claims in terms of international law. Here's what concerns me more:
First, the Iranian state has far more power to bring the region and global economy down in flames than Iraq ever did.
Second, we don't yet know whether Fordow's bunkered enrichment cascades were, in fact, destroyed. Trump said they were; the Iranians said they remain untouched and that, in any case, vital equipment and people had been removed. Both have ample cause to lie, but if the cascades weren't destroyed, this is not yet over. There will be more airstrikes, more pressure for retaliation, more casualties and unintended consequences. Indeed, in terms of preventing an Iranian bomb, the outcome could well prove worse than if the US and Israel had done nothing at all.
Nor does the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency know where Iran's stockpiles of enriched uranium are, because these were removed by Iran to avoid their being blown into the atmosphere by US and Israeli munitions. That's good; there has to date been no radioactive contamination reported beyond immediate-impact areas. But it also means that the key feedstock for attempting to dash out a bomb is no longer under IAEA surveillance.
If the prospects for ensuring a non-nuclear Iran are far from certain, those for forcing a positive change of regime are still less so. What we know of this phenomenon is, first, that it works best when the authority under attack has lost the will to kill, or lacks control over the security services needed to carry out its orders. Second, that it's best done organically, from within, and not through foreign military intervention. And finally, that success rests on the pre-existence of organized democratic opposition. None of these apply in Iran.
Far more likely is that any change would come from within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, where a decision might be taken to remove the 86-year-old supreme leader for having insisted on a policy that proved disastrous. Maintaining Iran as a threshold nuclear power provoked Israel, the US and their Gulf allies by developing a nuclear program so clearly angled toward an eventual military purpose, but without producing the arsenal that might have provided the country with a North Korea-style immunity from attack.
Would these be modernizing pragmatists who want to deescalate with the West? Or hard-liners determined to fix Khamenei's error? Would they liberalize the economy that, under international sanctions, the IRGC came to dominate? Would they liberalize politically, in a country that is, in reality, one of the last land empires, with large and sometimes restive Turkic, Kurdish, Arab and Baluchi minorities? The potential for an Iraq, Libya or Syria-style chaos is real.
More likely is that the Islamic Republic survives, with or without new leadership, and that the question of Iran's nuclear proliferation remains unresolved. That leaves what happens next primarily up to clerics and generals in Tehran. Trump could yet emerge the hero he so badly wants to be. And yet, perhaps ironically, he and Netanyahu now need to hope Khamenei and the younger IRGC commanders replacing those killed by Israeli strikes are more rational, and less messianically driven than they've been portrayed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
22 minutes ago
- Fox News
Gabbard was in Situation Room on Iran, still key player despite Trump saying she was 'wrong' on intel
Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was inside the Situation Room Saturday when the U.S. military launched successful strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, a White House official confirmed to Fox News Digital Sunday morning. A White House official confirmed Gabbard was in the room Saturday and that she is a "key player" on President Donald Trump's national security team. Speculation had mounted there was a rift between Gabbard and Trump after the president told the media Gabbard was "wrong" about intelligence on Iran back in March when she testified before the Senate that the nation was not actively building a nuclear weapon. Photos of the Situation Room released Saturday evening did not show Gabbard present alongside Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth and other administration officials. The photos, however, did not include wide shots showing the entire room or each individual present, with the White House confirming the intelligence chief was present. Trump and Gabbard appeared at odds earlier in June, when the president was asked about Gabbard's testimony before the Senate in March, when she reported intelligence showed Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. Trump told the media June 16 he did not "care" what Gabbard had to say in previous testimony, arguing he believed Iran was close to building a nuke. "You've always said that you don't believe Iran should be able to have a nuclear weapon," a reporter asked Trump while aboard Air Force One on June 16. "But how close do you personally think that they were to getting one?" "Very close," Trump responded. Then again Friday, Trump said Gabbard was "wrong" after she reported that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. "My intelligence community is wrong," Trump said when asked about the intelligence community previously reporting that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. When Gabbard appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee in March, she delivered a statement on behalf of the intelligence community that included testimony that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon. "Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data," Gabbard told the committee March 26. The intelligence community "continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003," she said. She did add that "Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons." "Iran will likely continue efforts to counter Israel and press for U.S. military withdrawal from the region by aiding, arming and helping to reconstitute its loose consortium of like-minded terrorist actors, which it refers to as its axis of resistance," she warned. However, as critics picked apart Gabbard's past comments, the White House stressed to Fox Digital that Gabbard and Trump were closely aligned on Iran. A White House official told Fox News Digital on Tuesday afternoon that Trump and Gabbard are closely aligned and that the distinction being raised between Gabbard's March testimony and Trump's remarks that Iran is "very close" to getting a nuclear weapon is one without a difference. The official noted that Gabbard had underscored in her March testimony that Iran had the resources to potentially build a nuclear weapon. Her March testimony reflected intelligence she had received that Iran was not building a weapon at the time but that the country could do so based on the resources it amassed for such an endeavor. Gabbard took to social media and blasted the media for "intentionally" taking her March testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee "out of context." "The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division," Gabbard said in a Friday post on X, accompanied by a video clip of her March testimony to Congress. "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly," she wrote. "President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." Trump announced in a Saturday evening Truth Social post that the U.S. military had carried out strikes on three nuclear facilities in Iran, obliterating them. Trump held an address to the nation later Saturday night, describing the strikes as wildly successful and backing Iran into a corner to make a peace deal. "A short time ago, the U.S. military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan," Trump said from the White House on Saturday evening. "Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise. Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity, and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's number-one state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success." "For 40 years, Iran has been saying, 'Death to America. Death to Israel.' They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs with roadside bombs," Trump continued. "That was their specialty. We lost over a thousand people, and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate in particular." Fox News Digital reached out to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for any additional comment on the Sunday strikes, but did not immediately receive a reply.
CNN
22 minutes ago
- CNN
On GPS: How Iran and Israel are rethinking strategy
Fareed asks Iran expert Vali Nasr and Israeli columnist Nadav Eyal how leaders in Iran and Israel are adjusting their strategies moving forward following US airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.
Fox News
23 minutes ago
- Fox News
Tom Homan reveals the 'biggest national security vulnerability' after US strikes Iran
Border czar Tom Homan voiced concern over the presence of Iranian nationalists and other unaccounted illegal immigrants after the United States launched an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities on Saturday night. Homan revealed what he feels is the 'biggest national security' vulnerability the U.S. currently has amid the conflict in the Middle East during an appearance on "Sunday Morning Futures" with anchor Maria Bartiromo. TOM HOMAN: I've said in the last four years, my biggest concern was this open border. It was the biggest national security vulnerability this country has ever seen. So, I pulled numbers this morning, just from a CBP under Joe Biden — there were 1,272 nationalists from Iran released in the country between OFO and the border patrol. You compare that the Trump administration is zero, right? Zero releases. And right now, because of President Trump's leadership, we have the most secure border in my lifetime, the most secure border in the history of this nation. So we have a secure border, so that was President Trump's big win in securing this nation. We're not releasing people in this country, especially when there are aliens that aren't crossing the border undetected. But under Joe Biden, we had over 10 million people cross that border. But my biggest concern from day one, beyond the fentanyl, beyond the sex trafficking women and children, were the two million known 'gotaways' — over two million people crossed that border. We don't know who they are, where they came from, because they got away because border patrol is so overwhelmed with the humanitarian crisis that Biden created. Over two million people crossed the border and got away. That is my biggest concern. And that's what created the biggest national security vulnerability this country's ever seen. The U.S. Department of State raised warning levels for U.S. citizens traveling to countries across the Middle East on Sunday. The changes come after President Donald Trump ordered strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities on Saturday. Affected countries include Lebanon, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Jordan. The measures are most severe in Lebanon, where the state department has ordered the departure of family members and all non-emergency government personnel from the nation due to the heightened security situation. The state department increased its warning levels for Americans in both Turkey and Saudi Arabia, but there is no departure order. Meanwhile, Jordan remains at a level two advisory, calling for Americans in the country to exercise special caution. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said President Trump was "fully committed" to engaging in peace talks with Iran before ordering strikes on the country's nuclear facilities on Sunday. Hegseth made the statement while speaking to reporters on Sunday morning, asked if there was a "particular moment" when Trump decided the airstrikes were necessary. "I would just say having the opportunity to witness his leadership, he was fully committed to the peace process, wanted a negotiated outcome, gave Iran every single opportunity and, unfortunately, was met by stonewalling, which is why he gave them plenty of time to continue to come to the table and give up enrichment, give up the nuclear program," Hegseth said. "But there was... I won't say the particular moment... there was certainly a moment in time where he realized that it had to be a certain action taken in order to minimize the threat to us in our troops," he added.
