{"id":4256,"date":"2025-06-27T10:46:34","date_gmt":"2025-06-27T10:46:34","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.developeternal.com\/?p=4256"},"modified":"2025-06-27T17:29:22","modified_gmt":"2025-06-27T17:29:22","slug":"from-bunker-bombs-to-nobel-dreams-trumps-war-for-peace","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.developeternal.com\/index.php\/2025\/06\/27\/from-bunker-bombs-to-nobel-dreams-trumps-war-for-peace\/","title":{"rendered":"From bunker bombs to Nobel dreams: Trump\u2019s war for peace"},"content":{"rendered":"
Choosing a military solution over a negotiated one in dealing with Iran is is a throwback to US unilateralism and regime change policies<\/strong><\/p>\n The US seems to have learned no\u00a0lessons from the post-Cold War phase of its unilateralism and regime-change policies in the Middle East. Instead of a new peaceful and stable order being established under Washington’s tutelage, it ended in the collapse of countries \u2013 not merely regimes \u2013 chaos, civil war, and the rise of Islamic extremism and terrorism.<\/p>\n It is not clear what legitimate US core interests were served by its military interventions to re-order the political forces in the region.<\/p>\n If the objective was also to remove regimes that were a threat to Israel\u2019s security and erode Russian influence in the region, some success may have been achieved in Iraq and Syria, though in a divided Libya Moscow seems to have gained ground.<\/p>\n Giving Israel a freer hand in Lebanon and Syria, and a virtual carte blanche in Gaza and in the West Bank too, may have in the short term given it an upper hand in security terms but longer term the answer to Israel\u2019s security dilemmas may not lie in asserting its regional hegemony with the backing of the US.<\/p>\n Israel has long viewed\u00a0its core security challenge as emanating from a nuclear-armed Iran. It has worked hard over the years to mobilize US and European opinion against Iran\u2019s nuclear program. That this program has been subject to stringent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards has not reduced the virulence of Israel\u2019s campaign against it. Israel has for years raised the specter of Iran becoming nuclear within months\u00a0or even weeks even though no proof\u00a0is produced to support this belief. The IAEA has not backed Israel\u2019s allegations.<\/p>\n \n Read more<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n These Israeli claims have resonated in the pro-Israel lobbies in the US to the point that President Donald Trump in his first term repudiated the nuclear agreement signed between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council (<\/em>China, France, Russia, the UK\u00a0and US) plus Germany. Under this agreement, Iran had accepted severe and even humiliating curbs on its nuclear program as a sovereign country, which included highly intrusive monitoring by the IAEA.<\/p>\n In his second term, Trump sought to negotiate a new, much tougher, nuclear agreement with Iran that would deny it even some rights it had under the first one. A couple of rounds of talks took place, and the date for another round had been slated. These talks were being held under the shadow of timelines and intimidating ultimatums by Trump. It is not improbable that the US was engaged in a show of negotiations while actually preparing for an aerial strike against Iran.<\/p>\n With Hamas and Hezbollah decimated and regime change having been carried out in Syria, Iran\u2019s hand was greatly weakened vis-\u00e0-vis Israel. Prime Minister Netanyahu evidently calculated\u00a0 that this was the most opportune moment to do the unthinkable \u2013 attack Iran militarily and open the door to US military intervention in support of Israel.<\/p>\n In other words, for Israel the objective would be to prevent any possible negotiated agreement between the US and Iran, and for Trump to seize the opportunity to eliminate Iran\u2019s nuclear capability by force, in particular its underground facilities with the use of B2s armed with bunker-busting bombs.<\/p>\n That Trump has chosen a military solution over a negotiated one is a throwback to US unilateralism and regime-change policies. The US attack on Iran is a gross violation of international law. It infringes the UN Charter. The US had no mandate from the UN Security Council to act against Iran. There is no provision in the\u00a0Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that would allow the recognized nuclear powers to eliminate a suspected nuclear program of a non-nuclear state in violation of the Treaty. The US attack also cannot be justified as a pre-emptive one as Iran was not threatening to attack the US. The rhetoric of a rules-based international order has been exposed for what it is.<\/p>\nPeace Prize path<\/h2>\n