US President Donald Trump stopped vacillating and ordered attacks on three Iranian nuclear sites, which he subsequently boasted of having obliterated. He has repeated his call for Iran’s unconditional surrender. His action has made it abundantly clear that Israel would not have launched unprovoked attacks on Iran without an assurance from Washington that the US would join its bombing campaign. Iran struck back with might and main, taking as it did targets in Tel Aviv itself and proving that Israel’s famed Iron Dome and other such air defence systems were not impenetrable vis-a-vis barrages of hypersonic missiles.
Now that President Trump has claimed that Iranian nuclear facilities were obliterated and thanked the US Air Force for a ‘spectacular job’, it does not make sense for him to call for Iran’s surrender, for what the US made out to be the casus belli was Iran’s alleged potential to produce nuclear weapons. Since the US says it has accomplished the mission of scuttling Iran’s nuclear programme, it ought to pressure Israel to stop attacks and thereby de-escalate the Middle East conflict that threatens global peace.
The US bombed Iran regardless of an assurance by Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Rafael Grossi that there was no evidence of Iran working towards producing nuclear weapons. Above all, US Director of National Intelligence, Tusli Gabbard, testified before the US Congress in March 2025 that Iran was not building nuclear weapons. President Trump’s knee-jerk reaction was to claim that Gabbard as well as the US intelligence community was wrong. Either he lied in a bid to justify unprovoked attacks he was planning to carry out on Iran, or he actually has no faith in the US intelligence agencies. If the latter is the case, then the US will not be able to rely on its intelligence outfits to safeguard its national security.
In a strange turn of events, after President Trump’s rebuttal of her statement before the Congress, Gabbard made an about-turn, claiming that Iran could produce nuclear weapons within months! She has changed her position apparently under duress. Trump’s claim sounds like that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, prior to the US-led invasion of Iraq. Bush and his partner in war, British Prime Minister Tony Blair had intelligence dossiers falsified to have the world believe that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs), and Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was trying to purchase 500 tons of yellowcake uranium powder from Niger to revive his nuclear weapons programme.
Bush’s WMD claim turned out to be a blatant lie as the US-led invaders could not find any evidence of such weapons. But both Bush and Blair got away with their war crimes. The so-called new world order is far from rule-based; it is defined by the law of the jungle. Might is right in the modern world, and even a lie Trump utters passes for the truth!
The US and other military superpowers are labouring under the misconception that they can ensure their own security by means of military aggression against the countries they consider their enemies. History is replete with instances where their military power did not yield the desired results. The US had to bite the bullet and negotiate with the Taliban, in spite of having declared that it would never talk to terrorists. It had to leave Afghanistan, without accomplishing its mission.
Israel’s involvement in never-ending military conflicts may serve Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political interests at home amidst several trials he is facing. He is on trial in three corruption cases. He now says attacks on Iran will go on until a regime change in Tehran, according to media reports. By invading Iraq, George W. Bush reportedly sought to overcome the so-called ‘wimp factor’ troubling him, and Trump has apparently tried to rid himself of the pejorative TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) label, which encapsulates his repeated behaviour characterised by threats followed by retreats.
Schumacher has said, ‘Small is beautiful’. Similarly, in modern warfare, it has become evident that small is dangerous. A swarm of cheap drones may be able to carry out far more devastating attacks than the B-2 stealth bombers the US deployed to attack Iran. So, the question is whether in this day and age, it is prudent for any country to rely entirely on its military prowess to safeguard its national security. A dirty bomb or a radiological dispersal device in the wrong hands could become as dangerous as a nuke in a populous city anywhere in the world. It was not missiles but fuel-laden jets that Al-Qaeda used to carry out the 9/11 attacks and bring down the Twin Towers.
In a world riven by conflicts, no country is safe. It is the duty of global superpowers to act responsibly, and work towards de-escalation in the Middle East.
