Three essential questions to ask in the aftermath of America’s attack on Iran

As US President Donald Trump set out on a quick trip to the Netherlands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) annual summit this week, a restive and uncertain calm set in across key parts of the Middle East. Namely, this past Monday, after 12 days of war, Israel and Iran agreed to a cease-fire brokered by the US and Qatar. And while Middle Eastern topics are unlikely to garner significant attention at The Hague — the crowded summit agenda will predictably focus on Russia’s continued war against Ukraine and broader collective defense matters — three key questions presently loom over US policy on Iran and the wider Middle East:

1. What is the overall impact assessment of the war on the Islamic Republic of Iran?

The first and most important question is how the war impacted the Iranian regime’s capacities, will, and future intent to pursue a nuclear weapons program.

The central goal of the attack, kicked off and prosecuted mainly by Israel, was to degrade and eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but it is too soon to tell what actual damage the war and the follow-on US strikes over the weekend had. Today’s media landscape is awash with competing narratives on every single issue, and information warfare has become a key component of global competition. Right now, as the world waits to hear more facts, the three belligerents of the recently concluded war — Iran, Israel, and the US — are thus all working assiduously to shape the information landscape.

Trump and some members of his team have said the strikes “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program as part of its messaging campaign. The definition of “obliterate” is “to remove from existence; to destroy utterly all trace, indication, or significance of”; and the strikes do not appear to have met that high standard. Undoubtedly, Iran has suffered a major setback in its nuclear program, but there remains worrisome evidence that the regime retains capacities on the nuclear front. As my MEI colleague Ken Pollack has warned, the real threat is that Iran could move to reconstitute its program and rush to a bomb.

Questions about Iran’s capacities encompass its ballistic missile arsenal as well as its ability to undercut regional and global security with its vast terror network, cyberattacks, and regional proxies, including the Houthis in Yemen. All of these elements remain a persistent problem, as one senior US military official noted in a Senate hearing yesterday. In addition, an inter-related assessment of the Iranian regime’s will and future intent will be important when examining diplomatic as well as military options for contending with Tehran in the aftermath of this war.

2. What is the diplomatic strategy and game plan for dealing with Iran?

Soon after the US strikes but just before the cease-fire, Trump and other top administration officials started calling for “peace” with Iran, with Vice President JD Vance saying that the United States wants peace “in the context of them not having a nuclear weapons program.” A lasting peace and durable stability, however, will require some form of diplomacy, particularly if the Trump administration continues to move away from the hints it and Israel have episodically dropped about the possibilities for regime change in Iran.

Three main challenges exist for constructing successful diplomacy. The first is the absence of a clearer assessment of Iran’s current capabilities, including the status of its nuclear program. The second is the massive trust and confidence gap that exists between Iran, America, and Israel. A third challenge is Trump 2.0’s poor performance and track record on diplomacy thus far. It is hard, five months into the administration, to point to a major strategic success on the diplomatic front beyond the India-Pakistan cease-fire — Trump’s team has come up empty on its major diplomatic initiatives to end Russia’s war in Ukraine and the Gaza war, and it has not achieved any conclusive outcomes in Trump’s trade wars against economic rival China or most of the rest of the world.

It seems essential that countries like Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq become key interlocutors to bridge gaps between the parties and broaden lines of communication needed to craft a diplomatic strategy.

The diplomatic engagement with Iran needs to be clear about expected strategic outcomes as well as nuanced in the details. Tehran needs to make commitments about its nuclear program that are convincing to key global and regional powers, including Israel. Iran’s history of actions destabilizing the region are top concerns for many of its neighbors, including those hit by missiles and drones in recent years.

Iran’s leaders will look for a clear disavowal of regime change, given all of the actions and statements by Israel and the Trump administration supporting that outcome in recent weeks. Iran will also look for the United States to live up to any commitments it makes and also to play a role in ensuring that Israel abides by the terms of the cease-fire, as Trump seemed to do in social media posts on June 24. If a new deal is reached on the nuclear program, Iran’s leaders will also look for assurances that the current US president and his successors would abide by the agreement.

3. Does the US have the political will and capacity to focus on the Iran problem?

Last but not least is the factor of the United States itself and whether it has the unified national political will and focused attention to remain steadily engaged on the challenges posed by Iran. Before America briefly entered the war last weekend, Americans were divided and distracted by other issues closer to home. Polls showed strong public skepticism toward US military options ahead of the strikes, with 45% opposed to the idea of attacking Iran and 25% in favor, with another 30% unsure.

In the aftermath of last weekend’s airstrikes, opposition remained at 45% but support jumped to 38%, according to the latest poll by The Washington Post. Still, overall US public backing for these strikes remains fragile, with Americans by and large still concerned about the possible contingencies that could arise in the Middle East because of more direct, kinetic US involvement.

The best pathway forward is for American leaders to ask tough questions about the facts of where things stand with Iran, develop an integrated strategy with partners in the region, and build stronger political coalitions at home to finish the job left undone by this latest Middle East war. All this requires a steady hand, clear objectives, and a solid understanding of developments on the ground.

 

Brian Katulis is a Senior Fellow at the Middle East Institute.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images