Five academics and former diplomats NPR
From left to right, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, US President Trump and Iranian Supreme Chief of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Jack Guez and Piroschka Van de Wouw / Pool / AFP, office of the supreme chief of Iran /Getty images
hide
tilting legend
Jack Guez and Piroschka Van de Wouw / Pool / AFP, office of the supreme chief of Iran /Getty images
American military strikes on the main Iranian nuclear sites have rekindled long-standing debates on Washington’s strategy in the Middle East. While President Trump praised attacks as a decisive blow for Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the reactions of regional and international experts reveal a much more divided image.
Shortly before the attacks led by Hamas on October 7 against Israel and the war in Gaza, the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia, were aligning more closely to counter the regional influence of Iran. But the United States strikes Iranian nuclear installations during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran marks a passage of the strategic objectives shared in the coordinated use of the military force.
Analysts note that although diplomatic alignment has long existed on paper, air strikes report a new phase of direct operational collaboration.
Calls for regime change to legal warnings and diplomatic collapse, strikes have exposed profound fractures in the way decision -makers and analysts see the path of security and stability in the region.
To understand these competing visions, before and after the ceasefire currently in place between Israel and Iran, NPR Morning edition spoke to five academics and former diplomats with expertise in diplomacy and the region of what the attacks have achieved, what they have compromised and what the future could now hold for diplomacy in the Middle East.
Here is what they said:
Only regime change in Iran can bring “peace and stability”, according to John Bolton
Bolton, who was a national security advisor during Trump’s first mandate and as an American ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, said that he would not have ended the air campaign as soon as Trump did “and wanted to see Iran placed under intense surveillance.
The destruction of Iran’s nuclear program, he said, requires “break the links” in nuclear production and for the moment it is satisfied with the “enormous damage” of these strikes.
“The effort to destroy a complex program consists in breaking the links in the nuclear fuel cycle at several points so that it is ultimately a project of years to put it in place. That is why I am happy,” he said. “I spent a long time to highlight the conversion installation of uranium in Isfahan. It was another key link of the process. It was destroyed.”
Bolton says that there is no contradiction in Trump’s actions, noting: “He has somehow zigrated to do the right thing, and he has zag by ending him too early. He will probably be Zig and Zag for the next six or eight months – it’s exactly like that. He does not have a national security strategy.”
In the end, however, he said that “the only long-term response to obtain peace and stability in the Middle East and in the world is to overthrow the ayatollahs”.
The only way to follow may be direct negotiations of the UR-Iran, said the former Iranian official
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian diplomat who participated in nuclear negotiations in the early 2000s, highlights the unprecedented nature of the recent attack: Iran was targeted by two nuclear states without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. He thinks that strikes were counterproductive.
“What’s worse than that? How can Iran trust?” Hossein Mousavian said.
On the issue of nuclear weapons in Iran, Mousavian suggests that it is a play of story and rhetoric used as a cover to justify military actions and a change of diet: “They were never after weapons. It is really a false and fabricated story, as they have done to attack Iraq.”
Like Bolton, he sees a constant approach from Trump, but he thinks that direct negotiations are the only way to follow.
“I proposed that there is a need for direct negotiations between Iran and the United States, I mean, I really don’t see otherwise because [the International Atomic Energy Agency] Proven that he is completely helpless, “said Hossein Mousavian.” Because by the AIAA Charter, if a state of nuclear weapons attacks a non -nuclear weapon state, this agency should come and support the state of non -nuclear weapons. But they did nothing. I hope that President Trump would go for a serious, sincere and complete dialogue and would stop these zigzag positions. “”
Decreased nuclear capacities can force Iran to reconsider options at the national level and with allies, known as an analyst of the reflection group
Jonathan Panikoff, a former intelligence officer who now heads the SCOWCROFT Middle East security initiative to the Atlantic Council, said that Iranian military capacities have been “seriously degraded”. He sees the potential for diplomacy, perhaps mediated by Oman, Norway or Switzerland.
“I think Pathway exists, but I think it will take a lot of Cajoleur in the coming weeks, weeks and months,” said Panikoff. “You can even imagine, potentially, an external actor like China trying to convince the Iranians to come back.”
Faced with internal difficulties, Iran also faces a new choice, “he notes:” Will he reinvest billions of dollars to rebuild entities at a time when its economy is struggling, which could lead to internal conflicts even more [of regional military groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza] Or a nuclear program that has long been a large threat to the region, including the Arab Gulf states? “”
The latest American and Israeli strikes on the limits of Iran’s push in international law, say the expert in the Middle East
Vali NASR, a Middle East scholarship holder at Johns Hopkins University, notes that American and Israeli military actions in Iran report that countries are willing to get around diplomatic standards and could reshape security perceptions between countries in the region.
He says: “The regime is still standing” and stresses that “the signal here is that the United States and Israel are willing and capable of resolving all questions militarily and that international law, rules, diplomacy, and Cetera, will not remain on their way”.
NASR warns that this approach “will have a scary impact on all countries in the region, be it their enemies or their allies”, fundamentally changing the way in which security is perceived beyond Iran and Israel.
Israel exaggerates nuclear threat and war does not spare civilians, says the Iranian academic
Setareh Sadeqi, a The professor of the World Faculty of Studies of the University of Tehran, says that Israel’s statements on the Iranian nuclear program are very exaggerated. Sadeqi says that the war darkens to everyone, including innocent civilians.
Sadeqi rejects the long-standing claim of Israel according to which Iran is “a month” of nuclear capacity, arguing “, although I do not agree with nuclear weapons, I think that if Israel, Pakistan, India, the United States, France and other countries have the right to have nuclear weapons, then any other country should also have it.”
When we asked her if she thinks that Iran is innocent, she says: “And you say that Iran has called for the elimination of the State of Israel. Iran has never called for the elimination of a people, but to a occupying regime which stole land from others and was a colonial project of the Zionist entity. Many, including the international community, the responsibility of the Genocde and palace. “
The Israeli government denies the accusations of genocide.
Despite increasing tensions, Sadeqi said that normal life in Tehran continues. “And when the war begins, it does not distinguish between pro-government citizens and anti-government citizens. This kills everyone. This is what Israel did,” she said.
This part was modified for Digital by Obed Manuel and James Hider. The Morning Edition team, including Adam Bearne, Olivia Hampton and Mo Elbardicy, published interviews with Radio experts.
