Was Trump Right to Bomb Iran?

Newsweek contributors debate the United States’ direct military action

- DAN PERRY and DANIEL R. DEPETRIS

THE U.S. LAUNCHED AIRSTRIKES in June on three Iranian nuclear sites. This was followed by a retaliatory Iranian strike on a U.S. airbase in Qatar and a ceasefire deal between Iran and Israel, who had attacked the Islamic Republic 11 days earlier. Were the strikes, ordered by President Donald Trump, a good idea? Should the U.S. get involved and seek regime change in Tehran?

Dan Perry: While the U.S. should generally avoid foreign wars and respect others’ sovereignty, Iran’s murderous dictatorship, a regional and global menace, meets the bar for exceptions. It backed militias that destabilized Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Gaza; propped up Syria’s Bashar al-Assad; and nakedly threatened Israel while exporting terrorism as far as South America. Israel’s limited ability to strike Iran’s underground nuclear facilities made U.S. involvement necessary. The swift, targeted strike—paired with a smart decoy delay and followed up by offers of talks while warning Iran against escalation—was a surprisingly smart move.

Daniel R. DePetris: President Trump’s decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites suggests he believed military coercion would compel Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to return to the negotiating table. Iran’s decision to cease fire would appear to be a vindication of that approach. In reality, nuclear talks will only produce a new deal if Trump leaves maximalism at the door. To date, Trump isn’t demanding a nuclear deal with Iran, but total Iranian capitulation—give me what I want or face more military force. Nothing in the history of the 46-year old Islamic Republic would suggest this was the right approach. It only risked escalation, which would have been disastrous.