From left, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Trump and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Jack Guez and Piroschka Van De Wouw/Pool/AFP, Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Jack Guez and Piroschka Van De Wouw/Pool/AFP, Office of the Supreme Leader of Iran/Getty Images
The U.S. military strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites have reignited long-standing debates over Washington’s strategy in the Middle East. While President Trump hailed the attacks as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, reactions from regional and international experts reveal a far more divided picture.
Shortly before the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and the war in Gaza, the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia were in the process of aligning more closely to counter Iran’s regional influence. But the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran marks a shift from shared strategic goals to the coordinated use of military force.
Analysts note that while diplomatic alignment has long existed on paper, the airstrikes signal a new phase of direct, operational collaboration.
From calls for regime change to warnings of legal overreach and diplomatic collapse, the strikes have exposed deep fractures in how policymakers and analysts view the path to security and stability in the region.
To understand these competing visions, before and after the ceasefire currently in place between Israel and Iran, NPR’s Morning Edition spoke to five academics and former diplomats with expertise on diplomacy and the region about what the attacks achieved, what they jeopardized, and what the future might now hold for diplomacy in the Middle East.
Here’s what they said:
Only regime change in Iran can bring “peace and stability,” according to John Bolton
Bolton, who served as national security adviser in Trump’s first term and as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has long advocated for a more aggressive approach to Iran, including regime change.
Bush stated that he would have continued the air campaign longer than Trump did and would have preferred to see Iran under intense surveillance. He emphasized the importance of breaking the links in Iran’s nuclear production to effectively destroy their nuclear program. Bush expressed satisfaction with the damage caused by recent strikes, particularly highlighting the destruction of the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan.
Bolton commented on Trump’s actions, noting the inconsistency in his decisions but acknowledging that the only way to achieve peace in the Middle East is by overthrowing the ayatollahs.
Former Iranian diplomat Mousavian criticized the recent attack on Iran by two nuclear states without UN approval, calling it counterproductive. He believes that direct negotiations between the US and Iran are necessary to move forward and criticized the narrative surrounding Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
Analyst Panikoff suggested that Iran’s military capabilities have been severely degraded and sees potential for diplomacy through mediation by countries like Oman, Norway, or Switzerland. He also highlighted the internal struggles Iran faces in deciding whether to reinvest in rebuilding their military capabilities or pursue a different path.
Middle East scholar Nasr warned that US and Israeli military actions in Iran signal a willingness to bypass diplomatic norms, which could have far-reaching implications on security perceptions in the region.
Iranian academic Sadeqi disputed Israel’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program, stating that they are exaggerated. She also criticized the impact of war on civilians. Sadeqi emphasizes the detrimental impact of war on all individuals, especially innocent civilians. She challenges Israel’s assertion that Iran is on the brink of nuclear capability, highlighting the hypocrisy of nuclear weapon possession among certain nations. Sadeqi clarifies that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and advocates for equal rights in nuclear armament.
Regarding accusations against Iran, Sadeqi distinguishes between condemning a state and a people, emphasizing Iran’s stance against an oppressive regime rather than a population. She points to the historical context of land theft and colonialism by the Israeli government, which has led to genocidal actions against Palestinians and Lebanese, a claim denied by the Israeli government.
Despite escalating tensions, Sadeqi notes that life in Tehran continues as normal, underscoring the indiscriminate nature of war that affects all citizens regardless of political affiliation. She condemns Israel’s actions in perpetuating conflict and violence.
This article was digitally edited by Obed Manuel and James Hider, with contributions from the Morning Edition team, including Adam Bearne, Olivia Hampton, and Mo Elbardicy, for radio broadcast.
