TEHRAN – In a recent article for Foreign Policy, Rosemary A. Kelanic argues that the best path forward for the U.S. regarding Iran’s nuclear program is to maintain the current status quo, acknowledging that Iranian nuclear latency is a longstanding reality.

The article’s call for rationality in the U.S. administration is admirable. However, Kelanic overlooks several critical contextual factors.

The political landscape surrounding Iran’s nuclear program in the U.S. remains volatile, shaped by deep divisions within the Republican Party and calls for military intervention from hardliners. Additionally, Israel’s aggressive stance, Tehran’s anticipated retaliation, and the Democratic Party’s opposition to the current administration’s foreign policy are underexplored and underestimated in the analysis. 

Tel Aviv: Biggest obstacle to peace in West Asia

Israel has long positioned itself as a staunch opponent of Iran’s peaceful nuclear program, arguing that any agreement short of the “Libya style” dismantlement is unacceptable. Israeli military officials have openly prepared for preemptive strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, conducting air force drills simulating attacks on Iranian underground facilities like Natanz and Fordow. 

However, a full-scale strike would likely require U.S. logistical support, particularly for refueling aircraft and missile defense coordination. Beyond direct military action, Israel has a history of covert operations against Iran’s nuclear program. From cyber-attacks (such as the Stuxnet virus) to assassinations of nuclear scientists, Israeli intelligence operations have attempted to slow Iran’s advancements. Tel Aviv has a history of deliberate attempts to derail ongoing negotiations between Iran and the U.S., and the article’s presumption of the U.S. having full control over Israel’s actions is inaccurate. 

Tehran has made it clear that any Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities would provoke an immediate and disproportionate response. Tehran’s likely actions include:

Military counterstrikes: Iran would launch missile barrages targeting Israeli military bases, critical infrastructure, and U.S. assets in the region.

Resistance Axis mobilization: Iran’s allies in the region, like Hezbollah and Ansarallah, could engage in coordinated strikes, opening a multi-front conflict against Israel.

Accelerated nuclear development: An Israeli strike could push Iran to abandon restraint and begin enriching uranium beyond 60%, potentially crossing the nuclear weaponization threshold.

The risk of full-scale war remains high, with Iran warning that it would defend its sovereignty “to the last drop of blood.” An Israeli preemptive attack would fundamentally shift West Asia’s strategic balance. Persian Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and the UAE worry that direct conflict could spill over, impacting oil markets and triggering retaliatory attacks across the region.

U.S. Democrats do not fall in line with Trump 

Many Democrats advocate for a renewed diplomatic approach, emphasizing the revival of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as the most effective means of addressing Iran’s nuclear program. They argue that Trump’s 2018 withdrawal not only undermined diplomatic progress but also alienated key U.S. allies, particularly European nations invested in the agreement’s success. Democrats further contend that Trump’s erratic foreign policy made negotiations with Iran more difficult. His administration oscillated between military threats and vague diplomatic overtures, creating uncertainty for both Tehran and U.S. allies. 

To counter Trump’s policies, Democrats could seek to limit funding for aggressive measures against Iran. Historically, lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at restricting presidential authority on military action, reinforcing congressional oversight in foreign affairs. Democratic leaders may also use public statements and media campaigns to challenge Trump’s Iran strategy, framing it as destabilizing and counterproductive. They could collaborate with European allies to counter unilateral actions. 

Additionally, congressional committees could investigate Trump’s Iran policy, scrutinizing its effectiveness and broader consequences. Potential hearings might focus on sanctions, military planning, and Trump’s diplomatic failures.

Divisions in Trump’s Republican Party

Beyond the Democratic Party’s stance, a significant faction within the Republican Party continues to advocate for military intervention as a viable solution to Iran’s nuclear program. While some analysts, including Kelanic, suggest that Trump’s influence over his party remains dominant, this assertion appears overstated. Many Republican lawmakers argue that Trump’s maximum pressure policy—centered on harsh economic sanctions—proved more effective than diplomatic negotiations in curbing Iran’s nuclear progress.
Rather than pursuing diplomatic concessions, a substantial number of Republicans favor sustained economic restrictions to exert pressure on Tehran. Some figures within the party have gone further, explicitly endorsing military action as a necessary measure. This position aligns with broader Republican calls for a return to maximum pressure, with some lawmakers even considering preemptive strikes on Iranian nuclear sites if economic measures prove insufficient.

The divergence between Republican hardliners advocating military intervention and Democrats pushing for diplomatic engagement underscores the fundamental uncertainty surrounding U.S. policy toward Tehran. Meanwhile, Israel’s aggressive posture and Iran’s firm warnings of retaliation raise the stakes, turning any miscalculation into a potential flashpoint for regional conflict. 

Kelanic’s call for maintaining the status quo overlooks the evolving complexities of the situation. Without a cohesive and realistic strategy, Washington risks perpetuating a cycle of escalation, with far-reaching consequences for regional security and global stability.