Most Americans, including me, prefer a world in which Iran does not have nuclear weapons. The reasons for this are obvious. But for two decades, the political consensus in America is that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Whenever the U.S. intelligence community told us Iran was close to having the bomb—which happened every year or two—talk of military intervention began anew. The American strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities this month made it a reality.

But as the nation tries to escape another protracted conflict in the Middle East, one question is worth asking: Why can’t Iran have a nuclear weapon? I don’t mean, “What are the risks involved with a nuclear Iran?” Those risks are real and significant. Rather, in asking why Iran can’t have the bomb, I question the moral grounding that allows the United States to be the arbiter of who can (and can’t) have nukes.

Russia is a geopolitical opponent. They have nuclear weapons, and no serious person contests their right to them. North Korea is a nuclear power with an unstable dictator who has repeatedly threatened the United States. But we haven’t used military force to eliminate this threat, and no one is even suggesting we should. Those examples show that the reason Iran can’t be allowed to develop such weapons isn’t simply that America will not countenance hostile nations possessing nukes.

Is the Supreme Leader of Iran more likely to execute a nuclear attack than Kim Jong Un? Maybe. But where is the supporting evidence for that? Without it, it’s hard to justify why Iran is the exception that requires direct military intervention.

A cynical view—but a plausible one—is that Iran is the exception because of the threat that they pose to Israel. If that’s the case, the justification for American intervention isn’t so much that Iran can’t have the bomb: it’s that Israel cannot be molested. Again, then, we must ask why. Why does a threat to Israel demand more military adventurism from the United States?

The most generous answer to that question is that our government still views Israel as a critical bulwark from which to advance American interests in the Middle East. But why? Why do we need a “bulwark” there? There are many possible reasons, but the most obvious one is that our government’s policy in the region is still “regime change.” In effect, Israel must be defended because a Western-style democracy in the Arab world will work (directly or indirectly) to foment a shift toward liberal democracy in the region.

The problem with that is, of course, is that the wisdom of the “regime change” policy has been debunked again and again. It was only 20 years ago that the intelligence community warned us that Iraq had secured “weapons of mass destruction,” and that only a war aimed at “changing hearts and minds” (what a paradox!) would ensure that the Iraqi people could taste the fruits of freedom. We never found those weapons of mass destruction. And the 20-year effort to end the threat of Middle Eastern terrorism ended in the loss of trillions of American dollars, thousands of American lives, and a historical humiliation in our final exit from Afghanistan.

But now, Donald Trump has lamented the fact that the term “regime change” has become “politically incorrect” —apparently oblivious to the fact that “regime change” isn’t merely a rhetorical flourish, but the real, central, failed premise of American foreign policy since World War II.

The idea that Iran cannot be a nuclear power also flies in the face of the nationalist convictions of the movement Donald Trump created. The foreign policy of MAGA is built on the idea of national sovereignty: the notion that the nations of the world have a right to self-determination. If America gets to base its decisions totally on self-interest, it follows that Iran—as a sovereign nation—also has this prerogative. If the United States gets to veto Iran’s decisions about its own defense and security, this undermines the legitimacy of the nationalist movement that Trump champions. From a foreign perspective, it starts to look a lot like “sovereignty for me, but not for thee.”

Too often, American leaders neglect to consider how our foreign policy is perceived by the people of other nations. This explains why America’s credibility in foreign affairs has been in decline. When Israel struck Iran, the Trump administration insisted that our nation wasn’t involved. Given the enormous financial investments that America has made in Israel’s military capabilities (to say nothing of our intelligence-sharing), such claims make us look like liars. And that’s to say nothing of the fact that only a week after saying we were uninvolved in the offensive, American pilots dropped bunker-buster bombs from B-2 aircraft. A similar charade unfolds in the Russo-Ukrainian War: the United States insists it is “uninvolved” in the conflict, even as it bankrolls the entire Ukrainian operation.

To persist in these pretentions is to insult the intelligence of every Russian and Iranian. Paradoxically, it makes America look weak. We are a belligerent actor—and yet we hide behind a fig leaf, fighting wars by proxy while insisting that our hands are clean. Regardless of whether Trump’s choice of direct military action was wise, American equivocation shows a certain arrogance. Once again, our nation perpetrated a “preemptive strike,” only to immediately insist that Iran cannot engage in reciprocal defensive operations. Then, after the president declared victory and the end of the “12-day war,” he expressed fury and surprise that Israel and Iran have other ideas.

Taken in isolation, the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program is unquestionably good. But the effects of such a brazen attack are uncertain and unforeseeable. What we do know is that there was never any real risk that, if allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, Iran would attack the United States. Iran is aware that such an attack would trigger an American strike that would end Iran as a geopolitical entity.

For that reason alone, America’s credibility on the world stage would have been better served by allowing Iran to develop such a weapon if they deem it necessary. If and when Iran used such a weapon to attack America or an ally—or perhaps even threatened such an attack, assuming a scenario where they really have the ability to follow through—then an American bombing effort would be morally justified.

As it is, though, America once again looks arrogant, hostile, and hypocritical in the eyes of our enemies. It should be obvious that this, too, imperils the safety, security, and sovereignty of our nation.