12/05/2026
President Donald Trump’s most consistent, and perhaps most compelling, justification for choosing to go to war with Iran was the “imminent threat” of the Iranian regime developing nuclear weapons with which it could not just destroy Israel but the entire Middle East, or cause a nuclear holocaust in Europe, or even threaten the U.S. via the intercontinental ballistic missiles he also alleged Iran was close to developing. “We would have had Iran with a nuclear weapon, and maybe we wouldn’t all be here right now,” Trump told a group of schoolchildren in the Oval Office last week.
None of this was or is true, writes Jonah Shepp. Iran was nowhere near developing a nuclear weapon or ICBMs, according to the assessments of the U.S. intelligence community and credible independent experts. Still, Trump has continued to insist that the Iranian nuclear threat was grave and imminent and furthermore that his war has ensured the elimination of that threat.
But after ten weeks of war, amid a tenuous cease-fire and worsening standoff in the Strait of Hormuz, the prospects for either a military or negotiated resolution to the conflict seem dim. “In the longer term,” writes Shepp, “the war could amplify the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran by increasing the Iranian regime’s determination to pursue a bomb even while damaging its technical capability to do so.”
Read Shepp’s full column: https://nymag.visitlink.me/5KF1dp