Donald Trump’s transparent coordination with Israel in contradiction to his public statements about wanting to first give diplomacy a chance must have demonstrated to Iran what most Americans public already know: the fact that a statement has emerged from Donald Trump’s mouth is insufficient reason to believe it. While there is justifiable reason to doubt that Trump knows the difference between truth and falsehood, others who should know better in politics and the media are pouring forth falsehoods in defense of his actions. Without bothering to determine whether these politicians and pundits are lying or merely reckless, let the truth be submitted to a candid world.
Claim: The three sites attacked were “totally annihilated.” That remains to be demonstrated, but it is doubtful, at least in the case of Fordow, both because of the limits on what these “blockbuster bombs” can do and the fact that the latest statements by the military itself is the more modest claim that they have been substantially damaged and satellite image provided by Maxar Technologies shows that Fordow, while severely damaged, is not destroyed.
Claim: Iran’s nuclear stockpile was of weapons-grade. False. The uranium was 60%-enriched, not 90% as required for weapons.
Claim: 60% enrichment is more than needed for nuclear power. This is true, and it is certainly much easier to refine 60% enriched uranium to weapons-grade, but 60% enriched uranium has medical (i.e., peaceful) uses.
Claim: The IAEA has reported that Iran has weapons-grade material. False. The IAEA reported that although Iran had continued compliance with the J.C.P.O.A. long after Trump unilaterally broke the agreement, they have recently ceased to comply with some of its provisions for the first time. This is the unintended consequence of an earlier rash act of Trump’s.
Claim: It is now impossible for Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. False. They still know how to make one. Killing even all of their nuclear scientists cannot prevent them from training new ones.
Claim: Iran will no longer want a nuclear weapon. False. They now have a greater incentive than ever before to develop a nuclear weapon, just as the American attacks on Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program drove him to more passionately pursue a nuke.
Claim: Trump does not need any Congressional authorization to engage in a limited military action like this. Wrong. While there are some limited military actions the President can take without Congressional authorization, entering an ongoing war on the side of the aggressor against a country that is not in a formal state of war with the US and that poses no imminent threat to the United States or to American citizens is not one of them. It is a war crime: “The IAEA’s General Conference has published a resolution noting that any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law, and the Statute of the Agency.”
Claim: That none of the above matters because Iran could build a bomb if it wanted to. This claim not only brushes aside the fact that Iran has not yet built a bomb (despite Netanyahu’s decades-old assertion that Iran was only weeks away from doing so) but dangerously ignores the fact that being attacked by two nuclear powers gives them an incentive to do so now after having resisted the temptation all this time.
Claim: Even the possibility that Iran might obtain a nuclear weapon, given the terrorism which it has allegedly sponsored, is sufficient justification for this attack. Really? Then the U.S. should bomb Israeli nuclear sites since Israel has ACTUAL, as opposed to potential, nuclear weapons and has not merely sponsored terrorism, but engaged in it, including the ongoing (temporarily overshadowed) genocide in Gaza.
We have already seen the lengths the Trump administration will go to suppress criticism from the media, academia, and the other branches of government — and even its own national security people. In a time of war his contempt for the America’s republican form of government threatens more than peace in the Middle East. Even if a broadened war is avoided, the administration’s treatment of those who dissent threatens American democracy itself.
Minaret of Freedom Institute
www.minaret.org
June 29, 2025
Leave a Reply