Why Trump's Best Card Against Iran Is Diplomacy, Not War

Despite their sharp rhetoric, Trump and Netanyahu realize that a third war in the region isn't in anyone's interest. A strike on Iran's N-facilities would be counterproductive

- LT GEN SYED ATA HASNAIN (RETD)

Considering Donald Trump's hostility and the universal aversion of the US towards Iran, one could have expected that military action against Iran's suspected nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow, Parchin and elsewhere would be one of the early priorities of Trump 2.0. That belief is not without reason. Israel probably has a well-rehearsed plan to take some of the facilities out, although, without US assistance, that may not be entirely possible.

The strategic environment in West Asia has swung dramatically in Israel's favor after the targeting of the Hamas and Hezbollah leadership and downfall of the Assad regime. Iranian proxies are at their weakest, except perhaps the Houthis in Yemen, who are under attack by the US, with Operation Rough Rider having commenced on March 15.

The spectre of Iran's nuclear programme has loomed large for almost three decades. Recent tensions have reignited the debate over whether the US should launch a strike on the nuclear facilities. But a very different strategic setting has welcomed Trump in 2025 than the one he left in 2020. There are two wars being waged over fairly elongated periods in Ukraine and Gaza, both indecisive in their final strategic impact.

The anathema that existed between Iran and the Saudis has diluted to some extent, thanks to some clever diplomacy by the Chinese and the reform-oriented approach of Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The Saudi army chief has just visited Iran after many years and a rapprochement could well be underway.