In the high-stakes arena of Middle Eastern geopolitics, words carry the weight of war, and decisions shape the fate of nations. On June 17, 2025, President Donald Trump reignited global tensions by publicly contradicting his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. While Gabbard, in her Congressional testimony, confirmed that Iran was not actively building a nuclear weapon, Trump dismissed her view, stating on Air Force One: “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having one.”
Trump’s sharp rejection of his own intelligence chief’s assessment revealed more than a policy disagreement-it underscored his alignment with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had already launched extensive airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities under the pretext of an imminent threat. But this alarmist narrative is not new. It is a script Netanyahu has rehearsed and repeated for decades.
Since 1992, Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed that Iran was just a few years away from building a nuclear bomb. In 1995, he warned Iran would have nuclear weapons within three to five years. At the UN in 2012, he famously displayed a cartoon bomb to dramatize the threat. In 2015, while opposing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)-a nuclear agreement between Iran and world powers-he again warned it would not stop Iran from going nuclear.
A strong, independent Iran threatens the hegemony of Israel and the influence of the West in the Muslim world.
Netanyahu’s drive for regime change and military aggression extends far beyond Iran. On September 12, 2002, he told the U.S. Congress that removing Saddam Hussein would bring “positive reverberations” to the region-yet Iraq collapsed, and ironically a Shia-dominated regime supported by Iran was installed, further strengthening Tehran’s influence. In 2011-2012, he pushed NATO’s intervention in Libya and later in Syria against Assad’s government, both now fractured states, leaning toward Iranian-backed Shia coalitions. Under his leadership, Israel launched strikes on Lebanon in October 2024, intensifying conflict with Hezbollah, and waged war against Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen.
While Israel bombed Iran’s Natanz enrichment facility, the more crucial and fortified Fordow site remains intact, buried deep beneath mountains. U.S. military experts acknowledge that Israel lacks the firepower to destroy it without American bunker-buster bombs and B-2 bombers. Thus, a full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would require direct U.S. involvement-a scenario Trump publicly denies but privately appears to be preparing for.
In a chilling development, Western intelligence agencies-allegedly under the guidance of Israeli strategists-have revived the remnants of Iran’s former monarchy. A surviving descendant of the deposed Shah has been thrust into the spotlight, being marketed by Western media and diplomats as a “viable replacement” to Iran’s Islamic government. This sinister move evokes the 1953 CIA-orchestrated coup against Prime Minister Mossadegh when the Shah was restored by foreign intervention. The present scheme appears to follow a similar trajectory: destabilize, delegitimize, and then forcibly replace.
Even more alarming is the strategic plan reportedly discussed between Israel and elements within the U.S. security establishment to assassinate Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The operation was said to be nearly greenlit until President Trump vetoed it-at least for the time being. But given Trump’s unpredictable nature, his previous reversals, and his shifting allegiances, there is no guarantee he will continue to oppose such a plot. If Trump flips, the assassination could trigger the final act of regime collapse and unleash catastrophic retaliation.
Simultaneously, the nuclear negotiations between Iran and the West have been deliberately sabotaged by the inclusion of unrelated and politically charged demands. Every time Iran shows a willingness to discuss uranium enrichment limits or international inspections, the United States and Israel derail progress by introducing issues far outside the nuclear realm. They demand that Iran cease all support for the Palestinian cause, abandon Hezbollah and the Shia militias in Syria, cut ties with the Houthis in Yemen, and withdraw influence from Iraq and Lebanon. These are not nuclear issues. These are geopolitical demands designed to hollow out Iran’s regional stature.
Iran has repeatedly argued that such matters must be discussed separately, if at all. Tying them to the nuclear file is both disingenuous and coercive. Yet the West insists on conflating Iran’s right to nuclear technology with its ideological and political alliances. The result is a negotiation framework poisoned by ulterior motives-a trap laid to force Iran to surrender not just its nuclear sovereignty, but its entire foreign policy. In truth, Iran is being cornered-politically, economically, and militarily. The West’s endgame is unmistakable: either Iran capitulates entirely or it is annihilated. The recent strikes may have set back Iran’s nuclear program by a few months, but the larger goal is to force Tehran into submission through sustained pressure, strategic isolation, and psychological warfare. This naked aggression only strengthens the justification for Iran to pursue nuclear capability as a means of survival. Conversely, if Iran were economically prosperous, industrially strong, and supported by the West in lifting its people out of poverty, it would likely have far less incentive to pursue the bomb. This is the fundamental question the West must ask itself: Are its actions deterring Iran or driving it deeper into the very path it fears?
Iran is not blind to these realities. Its leadership understands clearly that any use of a nuclear bomb against Israel would provoke immediate and devastating retaliation; possibly wiping Iran off the map. But the reverse is not true: Israel possesses hundreds of nuclear warheads while Iran has none. This strategic imbalance removes the deterrent value for Iran and emboldens Israel to strike preemptively, knowing it faces no comparable consequence. The result is a volatile asymmetry where only one party is fully shielded by the logic of deterrence. Until this imbalance is addressed, Iran will continue to see nuclear capability not as a weapon of aggression, but as a shield of survival. This rational approach, however, is deliberately ignored by Netanyahu and his allies in Washington and Europe.
Yet none of this matters to those who have long sought Tehran’s collapse. The justification, as always, is Iran’s nuclear potential. But the real motive is geopolitical dominance. A strong, independent Iran threatens the hegemony of Israel and the influence of the West in the Muslim world. That is the underlying reason for the calls for regime change, assassinations, sanctions, and sabotage.
For now, diplomacy remains the only peaceful path. Regional actors like Qatar and Oman have made efforts to broker dialogue, but Iran has understandably refused to negotiate while under attack. Israel shows no signs of halting its operations. And Trump, while publicly non-committal, continues to prepare the battlefield.
If Iran retaliates too strongly, it risks triggering Western military intervention. If it does not retaliate, it appears weak and further emboldens its enemies. This geopolitical trap leaves Iran with few options and even fewer allies. The only unpredictable variable that could tip the balance is the entry of China and Russia into the fray. Should they choose to support Iran, the conflict would become truly global.
At this moment, the world stands on the edge of catastrophe. On one side is a sovereign nation defending its dignity and independence. On the other, a coalition driven by ideological arrogance, military might, and the destructive vision of one man-Netanyahu. The question now is not whether Iran is close to a nuclear weapon, but whether the world is close to repeating the same mistakes that led to the destruction of Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
Let history not remember this as the moment when the truth was ignored and destruction prevailed. Let it be the moment when reason returned and diplomacy triumphed over war.
The writer is a former press secretary to the president; former press minister to the Embassy of Pakistan to France and former MD (SRBC).