Last summer, when the United States and Israel struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, I argued the operation was deliberate — not reckless. The June 2025 strikes on Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan were designed to deny Tehran a near-term breakout capability and restore deterrence without plunging America into another open-ended Middle East war.
The purpose was clear: disrupt the program, buy time, and strengthen Washington’s leverage.
Subsequent intelligence reporting suggested the damage was significant, though not permanent. Iran’s nuclear program was set back — not eliminated. That distinction mattered then, and it matters even more now.
Today we again find ourselves at a critical moment.
President Trump has surged substantial American military power into the Persian Gulf — carrier strike groups, fighter aircraft, and support assets — amid renewed nuclear tensions. This is not symbolic. It is a serious deterrent posture designed to protect American forces and signal resolve to Tehran.
That buildup is legitimate. It reinforces credibility. It reduces the risk of miscalculation.
But alongside this posture, we are now hearing dramatic claims that Iran could be “about a week away” from producing weapons-grade uranium.
Americans deserve clarity about what that statement means.
Enrichment levels and a deployable nuclear weapon are not the same thing. Moving uranium from 60 percent enrichment to 90 percent weapons grade is technically faster than enriching from scratch. But building a usable nuclear weapon requires additional steps: weaponization work, warhead integration, testing, and a viable delivery system.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed that Iran possesses uranium enriched to roughly 60 percent — a deeply troubling development. But there has been no public confirmation that Tehran has assembled a nuclear device or crossed into verified weaponization.
That distinction is not academic. It is strategic.
We have lived through what happens when worst-case intelligence assessments harden into political certainty. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq based on assessments that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Those claims proved wrong. The consequences cost thousands of American lives and reshaped U.S. foreign policy for a generation.
No one should casually invoke that parallel. But neither should we ignore it.
If Iran has restored enrichment cascades beyond what was damaged in 2025, present the evidence.
If inspectors have been restricted or expelled, say so.
If weaponization activity has resumed, show the proof.
So far, what we see publicly is enrichment risk — not confirmed bomb production.
That does not make Tehran benign. Iran’s enrichment levels are dangerous. Its ballistic missile expansion and proxy network destabilize the region. The regime continues to challenge U.S. interests and our allies.
Deterrence must be credible.
President Trump is right to position strength in the Gulf. Force posture protects American troops and sends a message that the United States will not tolerate aggression. Strategic ambiguity can serve a purpose in diplomacy.
But language suggesting “one week away” narrows the political space between deterrence and kinetic action.
It conditions the public for urgency. It compresses timelines. And it risks turning technical possibilities into perceived inevitability.
If the administration believes Iran is sprinting toward a nuclear weapon, the American people deserve a clear, direct explanation from the president himself — backed by corroborated intelligence and shared with Congress.
No spin.
No anonymous leaks shaping public perception.
No vague alarm that substitutes for documented facts.
The United States can strike if necessary. It has done so before. But military action must be grounded in verifiable intelligence and a defined strategic objective — not rhetorical escalation.
Another Middle East war would not be surgical or isolated. It would ripple across Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, and global energy markets. It would strengthen hardliners in Tehran and test American alliances at a volatile moment.
That does not mean force should never be used.
It means the threshold must be high — and the evidence must be clear.
The American people will support strong action when the threat is real and unmistakable. They will not support another war built on ambiguous timelines and worst-case projections.
We do not need another Middle East war.
And we certainly do not need another WMD myth.
If force becomes necessary, the justification must come clearly and directly from the commander in chief — backed by hard intelligence, not alarm.
That is the standard Americans deserve.
Notice: This column is printed with permission. Opinion pieces published by AFN.net are the sole responsibility of the article's author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of the staff or management of, or advertisers who support the American Family News Network, AFN.net, our parent organization or its other affiliates.
