To Bomb Or Not To Bomb

June 18, 2025

Credit...Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times

By Bret Stephens


Nobody, perhaps not even President Trump himself, knows for sure whether the United States will wind up joining Israel in launching military strikes on Iran. “I may do it, I may not do it,” he said on Wednesday. But with a third U.S. aircraft carrier on its way to the region and the president calling for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” the chance of war seems higher than ever — particularly now that Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, has gruffly rebuffed Trump’s demand.

If the U.S. does attack, the most obvious target will be the Fordo nuclear site, a deeply buried facility where Iran enriches uranium and which, by most reports, can be knocked out only by a 15-ton bomb known as a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. Less well known but surely on the U.S. target list is a new, still unfinished subterranean facility south of Iran’s main (and now largely destroyed) enrichment plant at Natanz. American pilots would also almost certainly join their Israeli counterparts in attacking Iranian ballistic missile launchers and bases.

And then what? Nobody doubts the U.S. can do a lot of damage to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, at least in the short term. What comes afterward is harder to predict.

Proponents of an American strike believe that we have no realistic choice other than to help Israel do as thorough a job as possible in setting back Iran’s nuclear ambitions not just for months but years — more than enough time to allow benign forces to shape events, including the possibility of Iranians overthrowing their widely detested rulers.

By contrast, skeptics fear that the lesson Iran’s leaders will draw from an American attack is that they should have gotten a bomb much sooner — and that the appropriate response to such an attack is to be more repressive at home and less receptive to diplomatic overtures from abroad. Skeptics also expect that Iran will respond to an attack by ramping up its malign regional activities, not least to embroil the U.S. in another Middle East war that the Trump administration desperately wants to avoid.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.

I’m with the proponents. A nuclear-armed Iran, fielding missiles of ever-growing reach, is both an unacceptable threat to U.S. security and a consequential failure of U.S. deterrence. After years of Iran’s prevarications, which led even the Biden administration to give up on diplomacy, to say nothing of Iran’s cheating on its legal commitments — detailed last month in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency — the world had run out of plausible nonmilitary options to prevent the regime from going nuclear.

But it’s also foolish to dismiss the skeptics’ case. Unintended consequences are a fact of life. An American strike could well drive Iran to double down on its nuclear bid as insurance against future strikes, especially if the regime believes it can safely resume the effort once the attacks stop. The key to making the effects of airstrikes stick is to give the regime reason to think otherwise.

Here, then, is what Trump should do: First, drop bunker busters on Fordo and other hardened nuclear sites to ensure that Iran has no fast route to a bomb. That would need to be followed up by dropping a diplomatic bunker buster on Tehran — the proverbial offer Iran can’t refuse.

It would look like this. As an inducement, the United States could offer immediate relief from most economic sanctions, along with a pledge that neither the United States nor Israel would attack Iran’s critical energy infrastructure and other economic assets. The United States could also persuade Israel to end its bombing campaign.

Editors’ Picks
How to Stay Cool and Safe in a Heat Wave
27 No-Cook Recipes for a Heat Wave
Can I Use Sick Leave if I’m Not Actually Sick?



The price? The regime would have to agree to two things: First, permanent, verifiable, comprehensive and immediate denuclearization, including a system of intrusive inspections and an end to its enrichment programs. Second, an end to its financial and military support for Hezbollah, Hamas and other foreign proxies. Trump could also threaten to lease stealth bombers and MOPs to Israel if Iran refuses the terms of the deal.

The supreme leader might well reject the deal out of rage or pride. But he would have to think carefully about the consequences. The regime, including its apparatus of repression, now looks weak and vulnerable to its people; they might well revolt against leaders who would choose uranium centrifuges over sanctions relief. As for Hezbollah and Hamas, they are now spent forces, yielding dwindling strategic benefits for Iran at an unaffordable financial and political cost. And if the regime thinks it can still do anything in secret, it should ask itself how Israel was able to track down and assassinate so many of its top military commanders and intelligence officials as they slept in their beds.

Look at the Ukraine War to Understand Why Israel Struck Iran

June 14, 2025

By David French
Opinion Columnist

While it’s far too soon to tell whether Israel’s military strikes will cripple or even substantially set back Iran’s nuclear program, the necessity of stopping Iran’s march to a bomb is far more clear today than it was even three years ago.

Two things have happened since President Trump’s first term that alter the strategic calculus: Russia invaded Ukraine, and Hamas massacred Israeli civilians.

The first event taught the world a lesson it shouldn’t forget. When a nuclear-armed nation engages in armed aggression, the rest of the world’s options narrow considerably. If Russia didn’t possess a nuclear deterrent, it’s highly likely that Western support would have been more immediate, more intense and more decisive.

Instead, Western powers were often slow to approve new weapons transfers, and when they did provide more capable weapons, they initially placed sharp limits on their use. Western aid certainly kept Ukraine alive, but restrictions on that aid have inhibited its defense.

One could easily imagine a NATO-enforced no-fly zone, or granting Ukraine weapons and a freedom of action to use those weapons that is more similar to the freedom Israel currently enjoys. But at every step Western powers have worried that they might be pushing Russia too far. This means that aid has often been too slow and too limited to give Ukraine a viable chance of reversing Russian gains.

Russia’s nuclear arsenal, in other words, serves as the world’s most dangerous insurance policy. It grants Russia the ability to launch aggressive military operations while also exercising at least some degree of control over the armed response.

North Korea’s nuclear arsenal serves the same purpose. It means that Western powers can’t really contemplate the same kind of military actions that ultimately ended Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq or Muammar el-Qaddafi’s regime in Libya.

While the West might look at both interventions as cautionary tales (they unleashed considerable disorder), dictators look and see something else: a gruesome end to despotic regimes, an end they desperately want to avoid for themselves.

Now, imagine Iran with even a modest nuclear arsenal. Even if it didn’t try to obliterate Israeli cities, it could use its arsenal to grant it a freedom of action in conventional war that it currently lacks. Like Russia, it could be relentlessly aggressive at the same time that its nuclear weapons could maintain the regime, even in the face of military defeat. They would constrain Israel’s ability to defend itself.

Editors’ Picks
Go Ahead, Have a ‘Fridge Cigarette’
What Is Tapping, and Can It Really Improve Mental Health?
How a Neon Light Artist Spends Her Day in the Studio


At the same time, Israel is living with the reality since Oct. 7, 2023, that its enemies will directly target civilians, massacre them on video and celebrate their deaths. Is there a sovereign nation on the planet that would then permit its chief adversary — the primary military backer of its terrorist enemies — to possess the ultimate weapon of mass destruction if it believes it can do so at a reasonable military cost?

In fact, Israel has a much better window of opportunity to stop Iran’s race to a bomb than either India or Pakistan had to stop each other’s nuclear program — or than the United States and South Korea had to stop North Korea. Each of those nations possessed enormous, intact conventional forces that would have made any military intervention extraordinarily costly.

Iran’s military capabilities, by contrast, have been sharply degraded. It still retains the ability to strike Israel with its missiles (it hit Tel Aviv on Friday, causing some damage), but Israel has a capable missile defense. Its proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria have suffered a series of catastrophic military defeats. And previous attacks from Israel damaged Iran’s air defenses. Iran is weaker than it’s been in years.

None of these arguments mean that Israel will prevail or that the strikes will prove effective or wise in the long term. We have to wait on the results of the conflict to understand that. But for now the combination of Iran’s weakness and the catastrophic consequences of an Iranian bomb mean that Israel’s strikes are both more justifiable — and more likely to succeed — than at any time in the recent past.

Israel Had the Courage to Do What Needed to Be Done

June 13, 2025

Credit...Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times

By Bret Stephens

It may be months or years before we’ll know the full results of Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear and military targets, which began early Friday morning and could last for days or weeks. But critics of the strike — and already they are vocal — might at least ask themselves whether Israel had any realistic alternative against an adversary that has repeatedly vowed to wipe it off the map.

Barely a day before the strike, the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, representing 35 nations, declared that Iran was in violation of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The agency’s technical report points to “rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium,” a failure by Iran to provide “technically credible answers regarding the nuclear material at three locations” and Iran’s “insistence on a unique and unilateral approach to its legally binding obligation.”

In plain English, Iran has been deceiving the world for years while gathering the means to build multiple nuclear weapons. In a better world, diplomacy would have forestalled and perhaps eliminated the need for Israeli military action.

But President Trump, who tried to dissuade Israel from striking, failed to get a deal after five rounds of negotiations and noted this week that Tehran had become “much more aggressive” in the talks. Make of his testimony what you will, but it’s worth recalling that a much more pliant and patient Biden administration spent years trying to reach an agreement, and also gave up in frustration with Iran’s repeated prevarications.

As for other alternatives, the clandestine means of sabotage and targeted assassinations that Israel had long used, and which probably delayed Iran’s nuclear breakout moment by years, had plainly run their course — otherwise, Israel would have continued to use them rather than risk Iranian retaliatory strikes using drones and missiles that could overwhelm Israel’s defenses.

Those strikes have begun. But they underscore, from an Israeli point of view, how crucial it is that Iran be prevented from being able to mount any of those missiles with a nuclear warhead. Academic theorists in, say, Chicago may be convinced that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons would merely help create a stable balance against a nuclear-armed Israel.

Yet that fails to take into account the millenarian mind-set of some of Iran’s theocratic leaders, for whom the ideological objective of destroying Israel may be worth the price of mass martyrdom in a nuclear exchange. It also ignores the prospect that an Iranian nuclear bomb would lead Saudi Arabia, and perhaps Turkey and Egypt, to seek nukes of their own. How stable is a balance of terror if there are three, four or five nuclear powers in the world’s most volatile region, operating in uncertain diplomatic combinations, each at daggers drawn with the others?

Still, even if Israel had no better options against Iran, it’s no guarantee that the strikes will succeed, either in the short or long term. Besides a direct retaliatory strike on Israel, Iran will be tempted to hit back at other targets: ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz, Jewish sites in faraway places, U.S. diplomatic or military installations in the region. The Israeli strike may also drive Iran’s nuclear programs further underground, figuratively and literally, accelerating its effort to get nukes while making future attacks more difficult to carry off.

Those risks can’t be ignored. But it’s worth noting that Iran was doing many of those things without the pretext of an Israeli strike, sometimes directly and sometimes through proxies, such as the Houthis and Hezbollah.

Editors’ Picks
A Way for People With Low Credit Scores to Raise Them
A Traveler Waits in the Stars for Those Willing to Learn How to Look
A Beginner’s Guide to Trail Running



Also worth noting is that Hezbollah has been quiet since Israel’s attack. That could always change, but it’s a result of its swift decimation at Israeli hands last September. That, too, was denounced by Israel’s critics as dangerously escalatory. But now it’s paying dividends in the form of constricted Iranian retaliatory options, the end of the pro-Iranian regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria, and the first possibility in two generations for the Lebanese people finally to govern themselves.

Sometimes military strikes end with blowback. But sometimes they accomplish their goals — as Israel showed when it took out Syria’s nuclear reactor in 2007 and Iraq’s in 1981. Neither regime, thankfully, ever acquired nuclear weapons.

As for the prospect of Iran now racing toward a bomb, evidence suggests it was already doing so anyway. It will take time, probably years, for Iran to regain its former pace, and it will do so in a severely weakened military, technical and economic state. And it can always be hit again.

It also matters that Iran’s leadership has again been bested on its home turf, not by the “Great Satan” of the United States but, much more humiliatingly, by the “Little Satan” of Israel. The weaker and more uncertain the regime looks in the eyes of ordinary Iranians, the likelier it will spark the kinds of mass protests that nearly brought it down in 2022. An end to the regime that has inflicted so much misery on so many people for so many years offers the only sure route to ending the nuclear crisis for good.

I’m writing in the first hours of a conflict that surely still has many surprises in store. It’s far too soon to say how it will end. But for those who worry about a future in which one of the world’s most awful regimes takes advantage of international irresolution to gain possession of the most dangerous weapons, Israel’s strike is a display of clarity and courage for which we may all one day be grateful.