In a rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape, Israel has reportedly targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities, raising questions about the United States’ involvement and future military actions. Iran’s contentious nuclear program further inflames the issue. Illustration by Nikoll Linda Aside from the JCPOA, Iran’s vast and elaborate IRGC-QF has been a focus of critical attention. This agreement was an effort to prevent Iran from developing the capability to enrich uranium beyond levels necessary for electricity generation. Recent events have prompted increased alarm over its nuclear plans.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was responsible for monitoring Iran’s compliance with the JCPOA, though major breaches have since taken place. By 2021, Iran had begun enriching its uranium to 20 percent purity. This blew past the 4.5 percent cap it agreed to two years after signing the settlement. In early 2023, the IAEA found something shocking. They found uranium particles at the Fordow facility that were enriched to 83.7 percent purity, far exceeding the 60 percent level necessary for military use.
According to this, it looks like Israel’s actions just came in retaliation to these developments. It is believed that Israeli forces have destroyed the above-ground section of Iran’s Natanz uranium enrichment facility, aiming to disrupt Iran’s nuclear capabilities. In the wake of these tensions, the U.S. has bolstered its military footprint in the region. They’ve sent more than a dozen midair-refueling aircraft and repositioned the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier.
Historical Context of the JCPOA
The JCPOA was the result of years of careful diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. In 2018, at Israel’s request, former President Donald Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement. This decision drew considerable blowback for riling up an already tense environment.
During his time in office, Trump’s administration was unable to propose a better alternative to the JCPOA. Unfortunately, this position remains a prevalent reframe in today’s ongoing debate about the U.S.-Iranian relationship. According to Richard Nephew, a former U.S. State Department official, “Setting [the JCPOA] on fire was a direct contribution to where we are today.” This feeling stems from an increasing belief that due to the U.S.’s withdrawal, Iran has been free to further their nuclear advancement.
In the face of these issues, Trump has continued to insist that he supports diplomacy – not military action – as the first option. He stated, “I think that President Trump has been very clear in his opposition to the use of military force against Iran while diplomacy was playing out.” Kelsey Davenport responded that Trump’s messaging signals a desire for negotiation over escalation.
Current Military Posturing
While Israel has been conducting unprecedented strikes against Iranian facilities, Washington’s military posture in the Middle East has likewise shifted dramatically. The U.S. has deployed several midair-refueling aircraft in advance of the operations. In related news, the USS Nimitz is now reportedly en route to the region. With such a backdrop, these actions have sparked no short supply of speculation as to whether Washington is getting ready to play a more direct role in the conflict.
On Monday, Senator Tim Kaine introduced a war powers resolution requiring Congressional authorization for any military action against Iran, highlighting growing concerns among U.S. lawmakers regarding unauthorized military engagements. The resolution is designed to ensure that any military action against Iran is subject to proper Congressional oversight.
Experts caution against rapid military escalation. Davenport warned that “regime change is not an assured nonproliferation strategy,” emphasizing the unpredictability of potential outcomes if Iran’s current government were to fall. She further noted that “we don’t know what would come next in Iran if this regime were to fall,” pointing out that even democratic governments may pursue nuclear capabilities.
Political Implications and Future Considerations
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu can be counted on to continue to call for and seek a regime change in Tehran, indicating a violent toppling of Iran’s leadership. Hard to believe, but just a couple of months ago, Trump said that “Israel and Iran should make a deal. Yet he boldly claimed that he could help broker those deals.
Richard Nephew offered insight into Trump’s motivations: “We know that [Trump] likes to be on the side of winners.” This sad reality highlights how fraught the current U.S.-Israel relationship is even as tensions stack up against Iran. As such, analysts argue that Trump’s deep alignment with Israel’s strategic interests could have a serious impact on shaping American policy decisions on military intervention.
Calls for accountability for U.S. complicity in Israeli actions have risen. Ali Ansari remarked that “the U.S. was aware… Even if the specific timing did surprise them, they must have been aware.” This admission raises some serious questions. How much longer is Washington willing to have Israel continue business as usual striking Iranian targets?
