Donald Trump’s strike against Iran proves why nuclear deterrence remains in effect

Near you, a series of break-ins have occurred. Armed thugs associated with criminal groups have been knocking down doors and grabbing what they can do. Police only appeared after the attack, which resulted in injuries and even death. Insufficient resources and overstretching, they cannot stop the robbers.

A person near your home raised a sign: This homeowner is armed and dangerous. The next night, the thug broke into the houses on both sides, not even bothering to test whether the homeowner in the middle had a gun or knew how to use it. They just left that house alone.

Question to you: Do you buy a gun?

Maybe you don’t believe in guns. So, even if the most dangerous item in a house is nail scissors, have you considered a similar sign? The evidence seems clear. Even the threat of revenge is enough to discourage potential attackers. Your life and family life online.

This is a dilemma faced by many countries in the world, except that such an analogy gun is a nuclear weapon. Countries without nuclear weapons – Libya and Yugoslavia – experienced attacks that ultimately led to regime change. Even countries with several warheads – North Korea and China – managed to stop deliberately vicious countries.

Both Israel and the United States have recently bombed countries where Iran has posted warning signs on its windows. Now, the fragile ceasefire is trapped in this conflict. The Trump administration believes it has undermined Iran’s nuclear program. It also believes that more pressure can be put on Iran now to abandon its nuclear weapons program at the negotiating table.

But what is obvious to Iran after the recent attacks is that the semi-covered pursuit of nuclear weapons is certainly dangerous, but not owning them may be even more dangerous. If the nuclear forces are not subject to devastating bombing campaigns, the unsafe countries will conclude that they are better off getting nuclear weapons as soon as possible.

It’s not just Iran. Other countries are drawing similar conclusions on how to survive in an international environment where collective security (police on a global scale) is collapsing as fast as a fence in a hurricane.

Iran’s complex

Guns can be used for different things – hunting, hitting clay targets, slaughtering children to schools.

Likewise, nuclear complexes can provide very different purposes. Iran has long insisted that its nuclear facilities are used to produce energy, medical isotopes, etc. But, like Iran does, a country does not need to enrich its uranium to 60% in order to achieve these peaceful goals. The enrichment level of nuclear energy is 3-5%. Meanwhile, weapon grade uranium is 90%.

The Obama administration and many international partners have reached a nuclear deal with Iran that limits the level of enrichment to 20% and begins diluting Iran’s uranium stockpile to 3.5%. The Trump administration will withdraw the United States from the deal. The level of Iran’s abundance of uranium is not surprising and begins to spread.

Iran maintains two underground enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow. These are the two goals of the American bunker-fortress. The 14 bombs dropped by the United States on these targets may be expected to return Iran to the pre-nuclear prestone age. This is of course what the Trump administration advocates.

But even in the pain of obvious failure, U.S. President Donald Trump quickly won (remember Covid, Afghanistan and the 2020 election?). According to anonymous sources with defense intelligence agencies, the recent U.S. attacks have caused Iran to back “maybe for months, the highest”. The Trump administration dismissed the assessment as a leak of “anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community.”

But Rafael Grossi, head of the IAEA, responded to the DIA report: “They have the capacity. They can say that over a few months, I would say, the centrifuge spins and produces abundant uranium, or less.” Even the Iranian officials who talked about the attack privately were surprised that the damage was not as great as they expected.

Even if the ability to enrich uranium is destroyed, the attacks from the United States and Israel cannot stand out from the ideas of Iranian scientists or desire to obtain nuclear weapons from the entire Iranian population. According to a poll since June last year, nearly 70% of Iranian respondents favored the country’s nuclear weapons – after nearly two decades of public opinion opposed the weaponization of the plan.

Memorandum on the United States and Israel: It is not just Iran’s political leadership that wants nuclear weapons. In other words, the change in the regime will not solve this nuclear issue. Iranian complex.

Future negotiations?

Given that Trump canceled the Iran nuclear deal in 2017, diplomacy doesn’t seem to be the top of the government’s agenda. But Trump itself is not diplomacy itself, only diplomacy related to the Obama administration.

Until Friday before the U.S. attack, the Trump administration was still holding secret talks with Iran even as Israel continued to bomb. According to CNN:

Trump administration officials and sources familiar with the proposal told CNN that in the terms discussed, what has not been reported is an estimated $2 billion investment in a new Iranian non-wealthy nuclear program that will be used for civilian energy purposes. One official insisted that the money would not come directly from the United States, preferring its Arab partners to pay. Investment in Iran’s nuclear energy facilities has been discussed in recent months in the previous round of nuclear energy negotiations.

It sounds a lot like the agreed framework the Clinton administration pursued with Pyongyang, and South Korea has largely provided primer for building reactors that could power North Korean civilian sectors. The reactors have never been built and North Korea continues to assemble its own mini nuclear weapons.

Iran said it will consider returning to the negotiation form at some point when it is received, ensuring that there will be no attack in the future. Without too much trust in every aspect, it is hard to imagine Iran forever abandoning its nuclear choice or launching an attack on Iran forever, even if both of them made a rhetorical commitment to the purpose of restarting the negotiations.

Better than opportunists

There is a lot of speculation that Donald Trump is an isolationist, an anti-armyist, a believer in the field of influence. The U.S. attack on Iran should be distributed in this nonsense.

Donald Trump is a political opportunist. He served as a pro-life or pro-Claputo based on principles, but on the extent to which they would increase his political (and economic) destiny.

Regarding foreign policy, Trump elevates opportunism to the level of geopolitical doctrine. He talked about avoiding military conflicts in the Middle East, but then had the opportunity to effectively fight Iranian targets (because Israel has already gained airspace). He opposed Ukraine’s corruption and declared Volodymyr Zelensky a “dictator” but then had the opportunity to sign a mineral agreement with the Kiev government.

Trump has no problem negotiating with religious fundamentalists. He gets along well with Sunni absolutists in the Middle East, and he may have a hard time explaining the religious differences between the Sunnis in Saudi Arabia and the Shiites in Iran. If there is a chance to reach a deal with Iran, Trump will likely accept the deal – mainly because he can call himself the one who truly eliminates the country’s nuclear “threat” (accept Obama!).

Meanwhile, Trump continues to make countries around the world more likely to invest in their own nuclear weapons programs.

At home, Trump has added nearly $13 billion to his nuclear weapons budget despite some comments on any need for lack of new nuclear weapons. After all, his “Golden Dome” plan would only encourage other nuclear forces to spend more money to escape this dangerous one-sex trick, after all, justify the distant anti-propaganda missile treaty.

Trump is reluctant to assure allies that the United States will defend if the attack attacks, which has taken a huge hole in the nuclear umbrella that has so far covered much of Europe and Asia. Now, European politicians are talking about building their own nuclear capabilities – the French arsenal at its center – and South Korea’s conservatives are also talking about building nuclear deterrence.

And other parts of the world? The Iranian parliament has begun drafting the country’s withdrawal from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Only another country withdrew from the treaty – North Korea – only a few countries are not parties to the treaty (Israel, India, Pakistan, South Sudan) and if Iran proceeds, it is likely to rush to exit, starting with Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which makes them choose for the nuclear option.

Nothing speaks louder than Trump’s actions. He exchanged “love letters” with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, a loyal supporter of Vladimir Putin, and showed that he respects China (nukes) more than Taiwan (no nuclear weapons). On the other side of the nuclear fence, he bombed Iran, threatened Venezuela and Cuba, and discussed the possibility of taking over Greenland and Canada.

I am not a supporter of nuclear military. But if I were Canadian, I might start thinking that Nice’s reputation wouldn’t cut it in the Trump world. However, several nuclear tips of ICBM will send a message that the White House is easier to understand.

((Foreign Policy Focus This article was first published)

((Kaitlyn Diana Edited this article)

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of fair observers.