After President Trump’s decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites on Saturday night, many people are wondering why he chose to pursue a military strike instead of continuing to pursue diplomatic solutions. Many have brought up the situation in Iraq, drawing comparisons. Still, there is also a historical situation that draws many parallels in President Reagan’s pursuit to stop nuclear proliferation within the Soviet Union in the 1980s. That was the main objective of the Cold War, which lasted between the US and the USSR for approximately 45 years. Reagan pulled off the SALT treaty and kicked off an unprecedented era of non-proliferation that has been the guiding objective for much of US foreign policy over the last several decades. And the Iranian regime’s nuclear objectives have been building over the past 40 years, so there are certainly similarities between the two situations. So, if Trump’s goal is non-proliferation, why did he choose military action? What conditions forced his hand? Or is Trump just not as good a diplomat as Reagan? For starters, each situation is unique, but I am glad that we have President Trump in the White House right now to make these decisions. As compared to our other options on both the Republican and the Democratic sides, I believe Trump is best suited to deal with the Iranian nuclear issue.
We can look at several factors to understand why Trump chose military action over continued diplomatic efforts. First, we have to look back at the recent efforts to deal with the Iranian nuclear program as compared to the Soviet Union’s. The US remained committed to sanctions and had extreme economic advantages over the Soviet Union during the 45 years of the Cold War. These efforts were largely consistent over a long period with US Presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, who understood the importance of keeping steady pressure on the USSR. This weakened the Soviet economy to the point that the people were no longer willing to support the government’s destructive path. Stalin was a formidable enemy and one of the most visionary leaders of the USSR, so waiting for a leader more suited to diplomacy was the best option for the US at the time. After patiently waiting out Malenkov, Khruschev, Brezhnev, Andropov, and Chernenko, the US was finally presented with an opportunity when, with the support of the Russian people, Gorbachev was chosen, whose reforms and openness to diplomacy with the West offered hope for economic relief. This was Reagan’s moment to pursue diplomacy, and with a combination of peace through strength and the support of a finely tuned intelligence apparatus, he was successful.
Similarly, the US has waited out the Iranian regime for 46 years, remaining hopeful that a new President could help curb the supreme leader’s destructive nuclear ambitions. However, this was simply not the case in Iran, and President Trump was presented with no such opportunity. Additionally, despite instituting the maximum pressure campaign in his first term, President Trump did not have the benefit of years of consistent policy that weakened the Iranian regime the way Reagan did with the USSR. Both Obama and Biden had treated the Iranian regime with kid gloves, enriching them directly and indirectly through cash payments and sanctions relief. Unsurprisingly, the democrats who claimed to support a diplomatic solution with Iran contributed to the conditions that made it impossible to have one. Without consistent economic sanctions and pressure, there is no chance for diplomatic negotiations.
Secondly, the Iranian regime and the USSR cannot be compared when it comes to their engagement on the world stage. The USSR behaved like a superpower, forming alliances and strong relationships with states across hemispheres. This made them a formidable foe, but also made them vulnerable to international pressure as a nation that engaged in the wider world and had responsibilities beyond their own borders. Nuclear proliferation was no way for a superpower to behave, and both the US and the USSR thankfully came to that conclusion by the end of the 20th century. The Iranian regime has no such limitations. They are a theocratic regime that claimed to have alliances across the Middle East. Still, after the Israeli strikes began earlier this month, we quickly saw that their only true alliances were their terror proxy groups, which the US and Israel were able to weaken easily. President Trump’s point for the past decade has been that a terrorist regime with no friends and nuclear ambitions is too dangerous for the US and the world.
Finally, if this strike had to happen under any President, which I would still like to see intelligence verifying that it did, Trump is the best shot we have at getting to peace quickly. President Trump is the first President we have had in a long time who will hopefully not be wooed by the neocon war machine into a forever war, with phrases like “nation building”, “we’re already here”, and “we need their oil”. President Trump is relentlessly focused on America First, with domestic energy production, surgical military strikes, and keeping American boots off the ground in the Middle East. We all hope he stays the course.
