Three Obvious Yet Contested Points About Israel and Iran

Key Findings:

In the aftermath of the brief Israel-Iran war, political actors on all sides are spinning the conflict according to familiar ideological lines. There are three core truths that should be acknowledged regardless of one's political leanings or views on leaders like Netanyahu or Trump—and these truths offer important insight into what might come next:

1. Iran Was (and Is) Seeking a Nuclear Bomb

The debate over whether Iran had officially decided to build a nuclear weapon — whether its actions were defensive or offensive, or whether its supreme leader reversed a religious ban —is largely irrelevant. Iran was enriching uranium to near-weapons-grade levels (60%), building underground facilities immune to attack, and acting in ways that clearly pointed to a military endgame. The sheer scale of investment and infrastructure rules out a peaceful, civilian energy purpose. While it is fair to question the timing of Israeli or American intervention, the larger point is that Iran’s nuclear ambitions were real and imminent, and this had to be treated as a genuine existential threat—the rest is just semantics.

2. Iran Will Not Abandon Its Nuclear Ambitions

Despite the blows to its nuclear facilities and personnel from Israeli and U.S. strikes, Iran is unlikely to give up. In fact, the war may have increased its motivation to pursue a bomb. As a revolutionary, anti-Western authoritarian regime, Iran’s legitimacy hinges on resisting U.S. and Israeli influence. Being struck so publicly and forcefully only reinforces the regime's need to show strength to its base. Moreover, Iran likely views nuclear weapons as the only true deterrent against future attacks, just as lessons from Libya and Ukraine suggest. So while military action may have delayed Iran’s program, it has also deepened the strategic logic for Iran to accelerate its nuclear pursuit. Believing that this conflict has permanently solved the nuclear threat is, therefore, dangerously naïve.

3. Only a Political Deal Can Deliver a Lasting Solution

Military action alone is unsustainable. The strikes avoided regime targets and focused only on nuclear and military infrastructure—a choice that preserved Iran's political leadership, avoiding a spiral into total war. This restraint may encourage Iran to eventually consider restraint or negotiations. But lasting resolution will require a deal: one that accepts Iran's regime is staying in power and builds a permanent, intrusive, and loophole-free inspections regime. Koplow criticizes the 2015 JCPOA for assuming Iran’s transformation or regime change, which never occurred. A new deal must accept Iran's hostility and permanence and focus solely on containing its nuclear program, not on remaking its politics.