Some conservatives believe President Trump has pioneered a new method of managing international arms, but this perspective is arguably flawed.
National security strategist Matthew Chloenich suggested in a recent column that bombing nuclear facilities in other nations could effectively deter them from developing their own weapons programs.
He posits that global leaders must recognize that attempts to initiate illegal nuclear programs could provoke severe military responses from the U.S. He describes this moment as an opportunity for the U.S. to adopt a fresh foreign policy stance centered on military-driven deproliferation, claiming it might ultimately enhance global non-proliferation efforts and, somewhat paradoxically, create a safer environment.
However, early assessments indicate that dropping fourteen powerful bombs did not adequately dismantle Iran’s underground uranium enrichment site. The Department of Defense has acknowledged the difficulties of targeting hidden military installations, indicating that only nuclear options could effectively neutralize such sensitive sites.
Hence, while the military operation may have had formidable intentions, it’s uncertain if it truly represents a “decisive display” of American power.
Moreover, there’s the principle of reciprocity in international relations. The U.S. cannot expect to invade foreign airspace and attack sovereign nations without facing potential retaliation. Following these actions, Iran promptly targeted U.S. military bases, raising concerns about the possibility of activating sleeper cells in response to U.S. aggression. The proposed “bomb ’em” strategy could incite more violence, according to a Stanford expert, who questions whether U.S. citizens are any safer than they were prior to the attacks.
Additionally, Iran’s operations counted on an element of surprise. If the bombing of bunkers is seen as a response to threats of nuclear proliferation, countries with similar ambitions will likely bolster their defenses. For instance, Iranians appeared prepared for an attack on June 21, moving critical components elsewhere.
Long-term resolutions, the Stanford scholar argues, shouldn’t solely hinge on military actions. Instead, reviving global negotiations aimed at comprehensive nuclear disarmament—with strict regulations on testing and sanctions against nations attempting to develop or conceal nuclear capabilities—should be the priority.
As long as certain countries possess nuclear arsenals, it’s unlikely that others will refrain from pursuing them. The Institute of Science and International Security noted that around 30 nations have sought nuclear capabilities over the years. Although South Africa successfully developed them, it dismantled its stockpile, while countries like South Korea and Taiwan might consider pursuing nuclear weapons because of security concerns.
This mirrors Ukraine’s situation after the Soviet Union: it once possessed nuclear weapons but relinquished them for security agreements, later regretting it after Russia’s aggression in 2022.
The upcoming 80th anniversary of the Trinity Test—a milestone in nuclear history—serves as a grim reminder of the enduring threat of nuclear proliferation. The current situation is exacerbated by the impending expiration of the last remaining arms control treaty between the U.S. and Russia, which is set for next February.
Research from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute suggests that there are no signs of ongoing negotiations to renew or replace this agreement. Instead, the trajectory seems to be toward further escalation, as nearly all nine nuclear-armed nations are modernizing their arsenals. Experts warn of a growing trend of heightened nuclear rhetoric and a retreat from arms control agreements.
Furthermore, the emergence of artificial intelligence and advanced cyber capabilities could significantly alter perceptions of nuclear deterrence, leading to increased instability. Trump himself has played a role in this uncertainty, having previously criticized the arms control agreements initiated by Obama’s administration.
Trump also dismissed the Iran nuclear deal negotiated by the Obama administration, which aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Upon withdrawing from this 2018 agreement, he sought to negotiate a new deal with Iran shortly before launching the recent attacks.
The unresolved issue of nuclear disarmament reflects an alarming paradigm of potential human extinction. Relying on mutually assured destruction isn’t a viable defense strategy; it resembles a pact for collective self-destruction. The psychological toll of living under the threat of nuclear conflict is particularly pronounced among younger generations.
Achieving a verifiable and enforceable nuclear disarmament framework benefits all nations globally.
Despite Trump’s lamentations about not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize like Obama, it seems unlikely he will earn such recognition through military aggression aimed at preserving America’s nuclear dominance.
