May We Be One Step Closer to a World In Which a Nuclear Bomb Will Never Be Used

In his question and answer essay for the New Yorker magazine, “The Dangerous Consequences Of Donald Trump’s Strikes In Iran”. author Isaac Chotiner conducts an incisive question and answer dialogue with James M. Acton , the chair and co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. During this exchange it becomes clear that Mr. Acton believes that the potential risks of President Trumps authorized attack on Iran’s Nuclear sites–the use of B-2 Bombers dropping fourteen Bunker Buster bombs on multiple targets at the Fordo and Natanz nuclear sites, while a submarine launched more than two dozen Tomahawk missiles on the Isfahan nuclear site–are significantly greater than the reward, which would be to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Mr Acton makes it clear that in his view this bombing of Iran’s nuclear power plants will infuriate and inflame the Iranian parliament and theocracy to such a degree that there is a serious and present danger that Iran will reconstitute a new program of nuclear arms development in a much shorter time period than if the bombing had not occurred. It would also appear to be his point that the United States was on the right track with the J.C.P.O.A. ( Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), the Iran Nuclear Deal that Iran had agreed to with President Obama, as well as the governments of China, France, Germany, Russia, the U.K. and the European Union. Under the terms of this plan Iran agreed to reduce the stockpiles of enriched uranium by 98%, and restrict enrichment activities at the Natanz facility for fifteen years. The agreement involved extensive monitoring and access by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to insure that Iran’s nuclear program was for peaceful purposes and not for the development of nuclear weapons.

President Trump’s administration pulled out of the J.C.P.O.A in 2018, believing that it enriched the Iranian regime–enabling it to use hundreds of millions of dollars to spread its influence and terror across the middle east in furtherance of its geopolitical desire to be the dominant and most intimidating force in the region–and at best it delayed the ability of Iran to develop nuclear weapons, but not preventing them from doing so. The Trump administration was also concerned that this agreement would permit Iran to continue nuclear research toward the development of a nuclear war machine. Upon pulling out of the agreement, the Trump administration immediately re-started sanctions on Iran.

In Mr. Chotiner’s interesting and provocative essay Mr.Acton makes in my judgment several hypothetical assumptions suggesting that Iran’s leadership may have the intent but not the “will” to produce nuclear bombs; and that the Iranians would be potentially fair and honest partners in agreements to continue verifying for peaceful purposes their level of uranium enrichment and inspection of their centrifuges. His premiss, it might be argued, is that it is better to be in a situation to inspect, verify and “trust” that this verification is working as opposed to being shut out of any ability to “know” to what degree and how close the Iranians might be to obtaining a nuclear bomb with the capability of using it.

I perceive an implicit supposition in Mr. Acton’s reasoning that the US and Israel ( including Europe and the rest of the world) have more to gain by treating Iran as responsible and ethical partners in a negotiation as opposed to taking the action just taken to attack and hopefully destroy their ability to enrich, produce and deliver nuclear weapons to their target. I believe the opposite: Iran has more to gain in stringing along negotiations while they continue to develop (with Russia’s help), hide and store the wherewithal to produce nuclear weapons. So, I believe President Trump’s attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities and weapons production capabilities is an action that was justified. And that the longer term consequences for not attacking these facilities where Iran may be just minutes, days, weeks, or short months away from celebrating the creation of nuclear bombs with missile delivering capabilities are greater than the shorter term repercussions of Iran feeding its terror cells in retaliation for this action. And, yes, President Trumps action does risk Irans retaliatory attacks upon the United States, its allies, citizens, military bases, and more as it potentially ignites terror cells wherever they may be.
And, yes, this retaliation by Iran risks a regional conflagration as the United States–now engaged in strategic and retaliatory actions upon Iran–responds to their attacks upon the United States.

President Trumps attack on Iranian nuclear sites can visit upon the imagination the vision of an apocalyptic horror as the region ignites in war. However, the threat of Iran developing and using these nuclear weapons is an apocalyptic vision of even greater horror for the region, Israel, the world.
What a terrible, horrendous decision it is to have to bomb Iran’s nuclear war making facilities. But to not do it just might be to delay the inevitable use by Iran of nuclear weapons.

I believe that there are a few truths concerning Iran and their current jihadist regime:
that they are dedicated to the destruction and annihilation of Israel; they would use nuclear bombs to accomplish this; they are bent on procuring nuclear weapons and are likely very close to obtaining them; they are an extremist, destructive regime on a mission of holy war ( jihad) and the chief reason for the instability and terror in the region that has sabotaged the ability of the Palestinian people to gain self determination or statehood. Israel simply could never allow an Iranian backed political entity as the political representative of any state on its border.

The Iranian doctrine and well stated objective is to destroy Israel; and we cannot trust they would abide by some inspection process through which they would not continue hiding ( with Russia’s help because Russia’s objectives for power in the region and to advance their own interests in Ukraine are tied to Irans influence, power and the survival of their extremist regime) the ingredients for completing an nuclear bomb, replete with delivery missiles.

Acton states that ” if Iran hadn’t actually made the political decision to build a bomb these attacks are going to lead it to make that decision…” Really ? I am convinced that Iran has made the decision to have that nuclear bomb come “hell or high water”, as it were. The IAEA has just recently reported that Iran has amassed a significant stockpile of highly enriched uranium, which is just a short step away from weapons grade material.

I am not buying the argument that the United States bombing of Iran’s nuclear weapons making facilities will suddenly radicalize their jihadist leaders, making them more intent than ever of acquiring a nuclear bomb. It would be difficult to imagine that they could be any more radical or menacing. Iran is not going to be trustworthy actors in any negotiation that deprives them of the status, prestige and intimidating power of possessing a nuclear bomb in my opinion. And they are not innocent victims of the malevolent intentions of the United States or Israel. October 7 belongs to Iran as much as Hamas.

President Trump had to stand up to his isolationist base in taking this action to bomb Iran–potentially splintering the MAGA movement. He showed courage, resolve, and unpredictability in such an action. We can only pray it was the right action to take. But to continue along the other path–hoping for verification and pleading for negotiation with this virulent regime that sponsors mass murder was also not the right option, in my judgment. May the world somehow–after the dislocation and danger that will follow this attack upon Iran’s nuclear war making capabilities–become a safer and more peaceful place. And may the prospects of nuclear bombs being dropped in the world be less than they were a few days ago.

Bruce Farrell Rosen
San Francisco, Calif.