Trump Can’t Allow Iran to Cross His Red Line
What to do with Iran? That’s the question of the hour. Some say the conflict between that nation and Israel is not our fight. Let Israel attend to its own defense needs and support them rhetorically, but otherwise let’s sit this one out.
In late March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to Congress that “Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.” Sounds dangerous. But she also said that our intelligence community, “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme leader Khomeini has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.” So we’ve got him in a box. Why risk the specter of regime change or nation building?
We all remember the dangers of attacking a nation based on faulty intelligence. While weapons of mass destruction were never found in Iraq in 2003, there is evidence that Saddam Hussein wanted others — particularly Iranian leaders — to fear that Iraq either had or would soon have them. After all, Hussein relied on fear to keep an iron grip over his own country’s disparate factions. The U.S. spent immeasurable blood and treasure in that multi-year endeavor. Nobody wants to see that movie again.
But Iran is different. President Donald Trump has highly surgical military options, of the “get in quick, and get out fast” variety.
Some Background
Even when Gabbard testified, others in the Trump administration (including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth) were more hawkish. And Israel was clearly convinced that Iran was getting dangerously close to having enough highly enriched uranium to power several nuclear devices.
They weren’t alone in this assessment. International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Rafael Grossi confirmed last year that Iran had enough uranium enriched to 60% — very close to weapons-grade levels — to build several nuclear bombs. Iran is the only non-nuclear-armed state to enrich uranium up to 60%.
Vice President J.D. Vance recently drew a distinction between civilian nuclear power and uranium enrichment. He wrote,
Iran could have civilian nuclear power without enrichment, but Iran rejected that. Meanwhile, they’ve enriched uranium far above the level necessary for any civilian purpose. They’ve been found in violation of their non-proliferation obligations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is hardly a rightwing organization.
So, Israel isn’t crazy to be concerned. While the mullahs in Iran have spoken for years of the U.S. as the “great Satan” and Israel as the “little Satan,” they’ve trained their crosshairs on the latter. Israel has been the victim of proxy attacks from Hezbollah and Hamas, including the devastating massacre on October 7, 2023. And when it comes to Iran threatening to “wipe [a nation] off the face of the earth,” it only ever means Israel.
Israel is geographically closer, militarily weaker, and more religiously associated with Judaism (think Holocaust) than the U.S. But a nuclear Iran would directly and indirectly threaten the U.S. and set off a nuclear arms race among other Middle Eastern nations, like Saudi Arabia, escalating danger in an area that has long been a powder keg.
Four in five Americans across all political persuasions agree with Trump that “Iran cannot have nuclear weapons.”
Initial Distance from Israel’s Attack, and Then a Flip
The U.S. initially distanced itself from Israel’s June 13 aerial attack. But Trump certainly had advance knowledge it was coming and almost certainly gave his tacit approval for it while publicly giving calculated misdirection to strengthen Israel’s element of surprise. That was former politician and conservative radio host Erick Erickson’s take (hardly a full MAGA guy). Erickson wasn’t alone in that assessment.
But there was no visible sign that the U.S. would get involved directly and militarily until a few days later. What flipped Trump’s switch?
One, Trump has been amazingly consistent for a decade that Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. The success of Israel’s initial attack may have impressed upon Trump that Israel’s intel on Iranian’s nuclear program was also trustworthy. If they knew where the bad guys were sleeping, what else did they know? Last week, the media reminded Trump of Gabbard’s more cautious take in late March. Trump immediately shot back, “I don’t care what she said. I think (Iran is) very close to having (a nuclear weapon).”
Right after Israel’s initial attack, Trump demanded that Iran not respond by attacking U.S. interests. He also expressed concern for civilian casualties, a greater issue for Israel than Iran.
But then Trump’s rhetoric jumped to a whole new level. He called for the immediate evacuation of all civilians from Tehran, writing in a social media post that “we” have superiority over Iran’s skies. Not “Israel” – us.
The U.S. Air Force began air operations over Tehran less than 48 hours after Iran attacked several U.S. assets in Iraq (violating Trump’s red line, beyond the damage previously caused by an Iranian missile that hit the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv).
Trump’s BIG Red Line
Trump’s latest X posts on the subject demand Iran’s “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” while also asserting that we know the exact location of Khamenei, who remains alive at our pleasure “for now.” Wow. That’s as bright a red line as can be painted. But Khamenei blatantly thumbed his nose in response, threatening a surprise attack “the world will remember for centuries” and refusing to halt nuclear enrichment activities.
What now? As The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board recently put it,
The world is watching closely to see how Mr. Trump responds, especially the hard men in Moscow and Beijing. Does he help a close ally remove a global threat to peace, and diminish a member of the axis of U.S. adversaries? Or does he listen to the voices of American appeasement on the left and right who fear any use of force more than they fear a nuclear-armed radical regime?
The first Trump administration advocated peace through strength: pounding ISIS into insignificance, killing renowned terrorist Qassem Soleimani, and hitting Syria hard for using chemical weapons. Trump was also the first president in decades not to get sucked into a foreign war or nation building. As Vance recently put it, the president has earned trust on this issue.
The U.S. Should Eliminate Iran’s Fordow Nuclear Facility
Trump is considering various military options presented by Hegseth, while getting assets into proximity for some kind of strike. In addition to deploying the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz to the region, Trump has deployed our newest supercarrier, the USS Gerald R. Ford. Getting all the ducks in a row takes time. I expect Trump to continue signaling strategic ambiguity to keep his opponents off balance.
As Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, (ret.) has recommended along with many others, the U.S. should destroy Iran’s Fordow nuclear facility. Burrowed under nearly 80 meters of rock, this station has advanced IR-6 centrifuges capable of enriching uranium at accelerated rates. Iran claims this is a civilian facility, but if that was true, why put it so inaccessibly below ground level? The only plausible reason for that is to hide it from the world.
The trouble is that only the U.S. has “bunker busting bombs” with the requisite power to really knock out Fordow. Israel could not do it. Given U.S. and Israeli air superiority over Iran, and the ayatollah’s unwillingness to give up nuclear enrichment even after Trump’s demand for surrender, while the violence escalates and civilian casualties mount, inaction on Trump’s part poses tremendous risk.
Taking out Fordow would be like killing Iranian military leader Qasem Soleimani in 2020. Do it and go home. Perhaps Trump could go a step further and work with Israel to fully destroy Iran’s missile-launching capabilities to better protect U.S. troops in nearby regions.
Either way, that not nation-building. It’s not even regime change. Leave Khamenei unharmed in his hideout. Let the disgraced 86-year-old lead his country from there, as best he can, with whatever credibility and military support he has left. Leave the fate of Iran in the hands of the people of Iran. But neuter the threat that a nuclear-armed Iran would represent to America and the world. And in the process, show that a U.S. red line truly means something. Other world leaders, particularly Vladimir Putin and Chairman Xi Jinping need to know that — and see it in action.
Alex Chediak (Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley) is a professor and the author of Thriving at College (Tyndale House, 2011), a roadmap for how students can best navigate the challenges of their college years. His latest book is Beating the College Debt Trap. Learn more about him at www.alexchediak.com or follow him on Twitter (@chediak).