Israel and Iran are at war. And unlike the missile exchanges in 2024 between the two Middle Eastern countries, which concluded quickly without further escalation, the situation this time appears much more serious. The war began on June 13, when Israel started striking key targets in Iran. Codenamed Operation Rising Lion, this offensive has one primary goal: putting an end to the Iranian nuclear program.

Understandably, Israel does not want its archnemesis to obtain nuclear weapons. But to fully destroy Iran’s nuclear program might prove impossible. Israel and the U.S. should be prepared to force a weakened Iran to the bargaining table instead of committing to the full-scale destruction of its nuclear facilities or, especially, regime change.

Israel has long opposed a nuclear Iran, as have numerous Arab countries and every American president since the Iranian Revolution. Even Russia and China, Iran’s most powerful allies, are against the Islamic Republic obtaining nuclear weapons. (They are also against the use of military force to stop such an acquisition.)

Given that a nuclear Iran has been an unacceptable prospect for so long, why has Israel decided to strike now?

For one, Iran is weak. Previously, an Israeli strike on Iran meant risking an attack from Hezbollah to the north and Hamas to the south. Such a risk no longer exists. Neither militant group is in any condition to defend its benefactor, having suffered tremendous defeats at Israel’s hands over the last year. The Houthis continue to attack Israel, but they have taken a beating of their own in recent months and thus cannot force Israel to cease its Iranian offensive.

Another factor—and perhaps a more important one—relates to recent intelligence. According to Jewish News Syndicate:

Israeli intelligence reportedly uncovered “golden information” that the Islamic regime had assembled an elite “weapons group” in the wake of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led terror attacks in southern Israel.

While Tehran already possessed enough enriched uranium for roughly 15 bombs, the weapons group had reached the experimental phase over the past months, with successful tests confirming rapid technical progress.

This is sure to bring the “weapons of mass destruction” lie to mind for all Americans, such as myself, who aren’t exactly thrilled at the possibility of repeating Bush-era mistakes. And while we currently cannot know for sure whether Iran was, in fact, as close to developing a nuclear bomb as Israeli intelligence has claimed, there is some evidence that the Islamic Republic was moving in that direction.

The International Atomic Energy Agency declared in a May 31 report that Iran violated its non-proliferation obligations. According to the report, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium continues to grow, and its level of enrichment far exceeds that required for civilian purposes. The IAEA, far from a pro-Israel organization, also stated that Iran is the only state purportedly without a nuclear weapons program producing such highly enriched uranium. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also made that point when she testified in front of Congress in March, though her report concluded that U.S. intelligence agencies did not believe Iran was building a nuclear weapon.

Israel struck Iran based on its belief that it was, in fact, building a nuke. It struck Iran hard, raining death on high-level Iranian officials, nuclear facilities, missile launchers, and military buildings. It shows no sign of relenting, whereas Iran’s missile strikes on Israel grow weaker by the day.

I have no qualms about Israel attacking its enemies, be they Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran. One needn’t be an Israeli sycophant to recognize that these entities are also anti-American and threats to stability in the Middle East. Yet America, while not directly involved, is supporting Israel’s war. This means the war isn’t some far-off conflict, unrelated to my own country—it’s my business, too.

It is therefore reasonable for me to have concerns about the war. The biggest one relates to Israel’s goal: the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program. The Jewish state has so far succeeded at damaging some of Iran’s facilities, including Natanz; it has yet to touch Fordow, which lies nearly 100 meters underground. It is commonly believed that without the U.S. GBU-57 bunker-buster bomb, Israel’s odds of damaging this particular facility are low. Whether Trump authorizes such a strike—and whether it would further enmesh America in the conflict—remains to be seen.

I would prefer the conflict to conclude without direct U.S. involvement. But let’s assume Trump does authorize the bombing of Fordow, and let’s assume the strike is successful. That would certainly set back Iran’s nuclear program for a while, but not forever. Will that prove satisfactory to the Trump administration and the Israelis?

This is a critical question, because the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program would require more than that. Iran’s centrifuges and centrifuge manufacturing sites would need to be located and destroyed; both the Arak and Bushehr reactors, which produce plutonium that could be used in a nuclear bomb, would need to be destroyed; Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium would first need to be located and then disposed of somehow, given that it cannot be bombed out of existence; and, of course, more Iranian scientists would need to be assassinated. Moreover, without inspectors to survey the damage done to Iran’s various nuclear sites, it would be difficult to ascertain the full extent of the damage.

To be fair, if all of the above were to happen—and it would require a massive undertaking, one that would require increased U.S. involvement—and the mullahs were to remain in charge, that would still only serve to delay Iran’s nuclear program until they could restart it again.

Which means that the next step would be regime change. Even though I am no fan of the Islamic Republic, I find this prospect concerning. The collapse of the Islamic Republic could result in chaos, as there is no clear opposition faction poised to assume power, as was the case recently in Syria. (The long-term ramifications of that change in government remain to be seen.) America could get sucked into yet another nation-building quagmire. Under Trump, who has vocally opposed the disastrous foreign policy of the Bush era, the odds of America falling into that trap seem low. But they are not zero.

It seems, then, that the most realistic goal is not the permanent eradication of the Iranian nuclear program, but to bring a battered Iran to the bargaining table, force it to accept a punitive nuclear deal, and wind down the conflict without further U.S. involvement.

President Trump faces a formidable challenge. He is pro-Israel, yet against Iran having a nuke; pro-peace, but also pro-strength. Striking the right balance will be difficult. But if there’s any man capable of pulling it off, it is he.