Tehran, Iran – June 16: Tobacco is increasing after a reported Israeli strike in a building used by Islamic … more
As the Israeli fighter bomb Jets suspected that Iranian military installations and disguised murder campaigns were aimed at Iranian military leaders and scientists, the United States finds himself deeper into a conflict. While Washington claims that it is not in war with Iran, events on the spot show that there is US involvement in Iran. US weapons, information systems and diplomatic coverage directly support Israeli military actions – turning what began as an Israeli campaign in a clear American war. Even more about, President Trump said he would decide whether to enter the war immediately within two weeks. In the meantime, a significant amount of US naval support is directed to the conflict zone.
Although Israeli officials present these attacks as defensive answers to an impending nuclear threat, parallel to the US invasion in 2003 in Iraq is difficult to ignore. Then, as now, secret intelligence and conjecture of weapons of mass destruction are the basis of the preventive war. Similarly, invitations for restraint are overshadowed by an emergency choir, threats that are covered and regional power struggles. But unlike Iraq, this time the US is not only involved in the start of the war. It supports a conflict that could flood the area and possibly involve America as well.
In addition, President Trump even thinks of an attack on Iran’s leader. Although not official in a commitment treaty, there is a widely respected informal rule that urges world leaders to avoid each other. In the end, respect for state sovereignty is at stake. And this principle is increasingly violated in major global conflicts today.
A nuclear threat based on speculation
While Israel justifies its strikes in Iran, arguing that Tehran is approaching the development of nuclear weapons, a narrative that reacted to Washington and is widely repeated in the Western press, official evaluations have a more complex picture. In accordance with International Atomic Energy Organization (IAEA)At the beginning of this collision, Iran did not work actively in a nuclear bomb and the IOEA had no establish Limited evidence of a renewed arms program. Although Iran’s “time unblocking” – the period needed to produce enough celestial enriched for a bomb – has been significantly reduced, this does not mean that Iran creates and develops a nuclear weapon. This procedure requires not only make -up but also sophisticated head design, reliable delivery systems and strict tests – which remain unconfirmed in the case of Iran.
So it seems that Iran’s idea is on the brink of nuclear energy is not based on verified intelligence, but on political urgency and worse cases. These fears, whether real or excessive, feed a military response that could easily escalate in a full -scale regional war.
Israel’s uncontrolled arsenal
The irony of this story is difficult to overlook. Israel is widely recognized that it has a powerful and unpublished nuclear arsenal, estimated at 80 to 90 heads, with material tearing for several hundred. These items come from reliable sources, including Nuclear threat initiative and Ship. However, Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non -Dissemination Treaty (NPT), is not subject to IAEA inspections and does not face international sanctions on its nuclear attitude. Meanwhile, Iran – while an NPT signatory – is persistently checked for enrichment activities that still be legally allowed under international law, while Israel’s nuclear opacity enjoys the complete protection of its American ally.
Gaza’s doctrine goes worldwide
Israel’s recent campaigns in Gaza have led to an impressive human cost. The United Nations estimate more than 35,000 citizens were killed During the last attack, with whole neighborhoods, hospitals and infrastructure they are eliminated. Human Rights Watch has documented And the daily television news of multiple channels from Gaza repeatedly confirm Israeli strikes on a non -military targets, raising serious concerns about the proportionality and laws of the armed conflict.
Now, similar Israeli tactics are applied elsewhere to the border. In Syria, Lebanon and more and more in Iran itself, Israeli strikes are aimed at scientific centers, residential areas and transport nodes. Citizens have been killed in cities such as Beirut, Isfahan and Tehran. What once looked like a regional retention policy now shows the characteristics of a wider, disrespectful doctrine – with unconditional US support.
The Role of the United States
Claiming that the US is just a passive observer is both inaccurate and misleading. US ammunition, joint military efforts, satellite and signifies intelligence and diplomatic support in the United Nations have played a vital role in Israel’s operational potential. This support occurs despite the lack of clear approval of Congress or the public debate to determine US interests in the conflict. It also happens without any attempt to create a long -term strategic goal. There is no diplomatic plan. No red lines have been set for escalation. And there is no accountability for what seems to be Israeli.
President Trump withdrawal By the Iranian nuclear agreement in 2018, it was intended for delaying the capacity of Iranian weapons – they scored a turning point. The subsequent “maximum pressure” campaign failed to limit Iran and has caused increased enrichment, regional instability and now the risk of immediate war. It is a failure of both diplomacy and deterrence, but the same approach is followed again.
No legal or strategic justification
Iran has not attacked the United States. Although it funds hostile groups for our allies, this has been his attitude for decades and does not justify war under international law or the American Constitution. No resolution from the United Nations allows for violence against Iran. No immediate threat has been shown to justify preventive self -defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
If the goal is to avoid a nuclear Iran, diplomacy – despite being provocative – is the only feasible option. Iran’s bombing facilities are likely to accelerate Tehran’s nuclear aspirations instead of stopping them. It could also enhance support for the toughest factions of the Iranian regime within the regime and could cause asymmetric retaliation over US interests throughout the Middle East.
The irony of Trump’s strategy
While the United States is escalating their military participation in the Middle East, it has begun to withdraw from another conflict is both legally and morally obliged to face. In 1994, through Budae MemorandumThe United States has assured Ukraine’s sovereignty in return for Kiev to resign from the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world.
This commitment was already stretched by the annexation of Russia’s Crimea in 2014 and the initial launch of Russia’s hostilities to Ukraine. Trump did nothing to face this scaled war during his first term from 2017 to 2021. While Trump supporters argue that, unlike Obama, Trump provided Ukraine with Javelin missiles, the keyword “provided”. In fact, he sell them in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the war became existential in 2022 when Moscow began a full -scale invasion. Now, in 2025, Trump’s support for Ukraine is decreasing. Help packages are delayed or diminished. Political rhetoric shifts to “peace through release”. Ukraine, it seems, has become a past cause. In short, the US is willing to pull another war against a hypothetical nuclear Iran, but they are hesitant to fully honor a promise to defend a non -nuclear Ukraine, especially from Ukraine selected disarmament. The message to other nations is clear: the nuclear restrained leads to American abandonment.
America must select: Authority or Plenipotentiary
The United States does not need to join Iran. Nor should it support a pretext model dependent on regional disaster and global hypocrisy. If Washington aims to maintain its credibility as a world leader, it must support world peace everywhere – not selectively, as with US actions in Iran. This requires a renewed commitment to diplomacy with opponents, the enforcement of rules between the allies and the priority of conflicts where its reputation and its honor are already at stake. Ukraine is characterized as such a conflict. Iran does not.
