ROBERT MAGINNIS: Iran may be closer to a bomb, but history demands caution now
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
When the United States and Israel struck Iran’s nuclear facilities last summer, I argued that the operation was deliberate, not reckless. The attacks on Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan in June 2025 were designed to deny Tehran the ability to make a short-term escape and restore deterrence without engaging America in another open-ended Middle East war.
The aim was clear: to disrupt the program, gain time and strengthen Washington’s influence.
Later intelligence reports suggested that the damage was significant, although not permanent. Iran’s nuclear program was not eliminated, it was withdrawn. This distinction was important then and is even more important now.
Today we find ourselves again at a critical moment.
President Donald Trump has shifted American military power — carrier strike groups, fighter jets and support assets — to the Persian Gulf amid renewed nuclear tensions. This is not symbolic. This is a serious deterrent posture designed to protect American forces and signal resolve to Tehran.
This accumulation is legitimate. It strengthens reliability. Reduces the risk of miscalculation.
But alongside this stance, we hear dramatic claims that Iran may be “about a week away” from producing weapons-grade uranium.
WHILE IRAN IS TALKING ABOUT GOING TO OMAN, THE USA IS POSITIONING ITS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS AND STRIKING PLATFORMS IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
Americans deserve clarity about what this statement means.
Enrichment levels and a deployable nuclear weapon are not the same thing. Moving uranium from 60% enrichment to 90% weapons-grade material is technically faster than enriching from scratch. But creating a usable nuclear weapon requires additional steps: weaponization study, warhead integration, testing, and a viable delivery system.
Language suggesting that Iran is ‘a week away’ narrows the political space between deterrence and kinetic action. It conditions the public to urgency. It compresses timelines. And it risks turning technical possibilities into perceived inevitabilities.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has confirmed that Iran has uranium enriched to approximately 60 percent; This is an extremely disturbing development. But there is no public confirmation that Tehran has produced a nuclear device or is in the process of confirmed proliferation.
Ayatollah’s Armory VS. AMERICAN FIREPOWER: IRAN’S TOP 4 THREATS AND HOW WE FIGHT
This distinction is not academic. It is strategic.
We’ve experienced what happens when worst-case intelligence assessments become political certainty. The USA invaded Iraq in 2003 based on assessments that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. These claims turned out to be false. The consequences cost thousands of American lives and reshaped U.S. foreign policy for a generation.
No one should resort to this parallel by chance. But we shouldn’t ignore this either.
FORMER REPRESENTATIVE MTG CLAIMS AMERICANS DO NOT WANT WAR AGAINST IRAN
If Iran has revived damaged enrichment cascades in 2025, present the evidence.
If inspectors have been restricted or expelled, say so.
If arming activity has resumed, show evidence.
PRESIDENT TRUMP’S MIRRORS OF THE IRANIAN STRUCTURE THE SCALE OF THE 2003 IRAQ WAR WHILE TENSIONS INCREASED
What we have seen publicly so far is not confirmation of bomb production, but the risk of enrichment.
This does not make Tehran benign. Iran’s enrichment levels are dangerous. Ballistic missile expansion and proxy network are destabilizing the region. The regime continues to challenge the interests of the United States and our allies.
Deterrence must be credible.
KHANNA AND MASSIE THREAT TO FORCE VOTE FOR IRAN WHEN US ATTACK POSSIBLE
President Trump is right to position power in the Gulf. This force posture protects American troops and sends the message that the United States will not tolerate aggression. Strategic uncertainty can serve a purpose in diplomacy.
But language suggesting that Iran is “a week away” narrows the political space between deterrence and kinetic action.
It conditions the public to urgency. It compresses timelines. And it risks turning technical possibilities into perceived inevitabilities.
ISRAELIS ARE KEEPING THEIR SUITCASES PACKED AND READY WHILE TRUMP WELCOME THE DECISION ON THE POSSIBILITY OF AN IRAN STRIKE
If the administration believes Iran is moving toward nuclear weapons, the American people deserve a clear and direct statement from the president himself; This statement is supported by verified intelligence and shared with Congress.
No turning.
There are no anonymous leaks shaping public perception.
MORNING GLORY: WHAT WILL PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP DECIDE TO DO WITH IRAN?
There is no vague alarm to replace documented facts.
The USA can strike if necessary. He’s done this before. However, military action must be based on verifiable intelligence and a defined strategic objective, not on escalation.
Another Middle East war will not be a surgical or isolated war. It will spread to Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf and global energy markets. This will strengthen conservatives in Tehran and test American alliances at a volatile moment.
TRUMP SAID IRAN HAS 15 DAYS TO REACH A DEAL OR IT WILL FACE AN ‘UNFORTUNATE’ RESULT
This does not mean that force should never be used.
This means that the threshold must be high and the evidence must be clear.
When the threat is real and clear, the American people will support strong action. They will not support another war built on uncertain timelines and worst-case predictions.
CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS
We don’t need another Middle East war.
And we certainly don’t need another weapon of mass destruction myth.
CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION
If force becomes necessary, the justification must come clearly and directly from the commander in chief; It should be supported by solid intelligence, not alarm.
This is the standard Americans deserve.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM ROBERT MAGINNIS
