The recent 12-day conflict between Israel, the United States, and Iran marked a dangerous escalation in Middle East tensions, resulting in significant loss of life and widespread destruction. While the immediate triggers involved missile and drone exchanges, analysis reveals deeper roots stemming from policy decisions made years earlier. A critical perspective argues that the failure to restore the 2015 Iran nuclear deal played a crucial role in enabling this devastating scenario, placing a measure of accountability on President Joe Biden.
The core of this analysis is the argument that diplomacy was the most viable path to preventing conflict. Roughly a decade prior, as the U.S. neared completion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, President Barack Obama cautioned against abandoning the agreement. He warned clearly that the ultimate choice was between diplomatic engagement and eventual military confrontation. The JCPOA, reached in 2015, aimed to significantly curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, establishing a framework for international oversight.
However, the diplomatic path was abruptly abandoned less than three years later. During President Donald Trump’s administration, the United States unilaterally withdrew from the JCPOA. This decision effectively dismantled the agreement, removing key restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities and increasing regional instability. For years, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had advocated for direct U.S. military action against Iran, finding a receptive ear in Trump, who ultimately acceded to demands to terminate the nuclear accord.
With the deal defunct and tensions mounting, the potential for conflict escalated. Recent hostilities saw Israel launch extensive attacks on Iranian military sites, nuclear facilities, and civilian areas. Iran responded with retaliatory strikes. The United States then entered the fray, executing significant bombing runs against Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Thankfully, the U.S. role remained limited, and after nearly two weeks of exchanges, a ceasefire was agreed upon between Israel and Iran.
It might seem straightforward to attribute the responsibility for this conflict primarily to Netanyahu and Trump, given their historical opposition to the JCPOA and actions contributing to its collapse. While their roles were undeniably significant, focusing solely on them overlooks the critical period when the diplomatic path could have been reopened.
Some responsibility for the conflict, the civilian casualties, and the regional instability must be assigned to President Joe Biden. Having served as Vice President during the negotiation of the original deal, Biden entered office in 2021 with an opportunity to reverse Trump’s withdrawal and restore the JCPOA. This chance to correct course and potentially avert a crisis, the argument goes, was not effectively seized.
When the Biden administration took office, there was an expectation they would quickly re-enter the nuclear agreement as part of a broader effort to undo Trump-era policies. While some actions like lifting travel restrictions and rejoining the Paris climate accord were swift, advisors indicated that returning to the Iran deal would be more complex. The administration introduced a precondition for U.S. re-entry: Iran must first dismantle the nuclear advancements it had made in response to the U.S. withdrawal, rather than the U.S. simply resuming its own compliance.
This strategic choice initiated protracted back-and-forth negotiations, consuming valuable time that neither side could easily spare. The delays did more than just hinder prospects for a deal; they also impacted broader regional dynamics. Many observers understood the urgency of restoring the agreement before Iranian presidential elections scheduled for that summer, which were likely to bring hardline opponents of the JCPOA back into power.
Despite this understanding, rather than pushing for the urgent restoration of U.S. commitments under the existing agreement, reports suggested Biden directed his advisors to initially minimize focus on the Middle East to concentrate on domestic priorities. Negotiations did commence but were reportedly circular and faced obstacles, including opposition from congressional hawks and alleged sabotage, such as a 2021 attack on Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility just as talks were gaining momentum.
Ultimately, the window for diplomacy closed before a strong critic of the JCPOA became Iran’s president. In the absence of the agreement and its monitoring mechanisms, Iran’s nuclear program advanced significantly. By the conclusion of Biden’s term, internal discussions within his administration had reportedly shifted from seeking a diplomatic solution to contemplating military strikes aimed at delaying Iran’s nuclear progress.
The nuclear issue, which some believed could have been resolved through diplomacy under Biden, instead worsened during his tenure, contributing to the conditions that led to the recent conflict. Hundreds of innocent lives were lost, and destruction occurred on both sides. Moreover, the situation regarding Iran’s nuclear capabilities is arguably worse than it was a decade ago.
The Cost of Conflict and Consequences Beyond the Battlefield
The 12-day military campaign brought significant repercussions that extend far beyond the immediate casualties and destruction. Analyzing the aftermath reveals substantial economic burdens and shifts in geopolitical dynamics.
For Israel, the financial cost of ongoing conflict is immense. Estimates suggest that a month of war could cost billions of dollars in military expenses alone, adding to the considerable expenditures from previous conflicts. Prolonged instability threatens Israel’s economic growth forecasts, fiscal stability, and potentially its credit rating. Labor shortages, exacerbated by the mobilization of reserve forces from key sectors, further strain the economy.
Iran also faces severe economic hardship. Decades of sanctions have already crippled its economy, necessitating massive investment in infrastructure. The military strikes inflicted further damage, adding potentially tens of billions to reconstruction costs. A significant portion of the Iranian population reportedly suffers from food insecurity, a humanitarian crisis likely worsened by conflict.
Globally, the conflict introduced substantial economic risks. Potential Iranian retaliation could include cyberattacks on critical U.S. infrastructure, incurring costs ranging from hundreds of billions to over a trillion dollars. More critically, any attempt by Iran to target Gulf state energy infrastructure or disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital choke point for global oil and liquid natural gas supplies, could send energy prices soaring. Such a scenario might shrink global GDP and fuel stagflation, complicating efforts to control inflation in the U.S. and elsewhere.
Beyond economics, the conflict impacted the wider international landscape. It diverted global attention and resources, including military aid, away from other critical areas like the war in Ukraine. Analysts noted that the focus of international forums, such as a recent NATO summit, shifted markedly to the Middle East crisis, whereas previously, Ukraine had been the central topic. This diversion is seen by some as potentially benefiting Russia’s war effort, allowing them to exploit shifts in Western priorities and resource allocation. Furthermore, U.S. involvement in strikes against Iran reportedly raised doubts in the Kremlin about Washington’s reliability as a diplomatic partner regarding Ukraine.
The discussion around the conflict also reignited debate over international law and the consistency of its application. Critics pointed to a perceived double standard where violations by adversaries are strongly condemned, while similar actions by allies receive a muted response. This inconsistency, particularly in comparing responses to actions like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and alleged preventive strikes on Iran, is argued to undermine the credibility of the “rules-based international order.”
Diplomacy as the Alternative
The analysis consistently returns to the argument that effective diplomacy, specifically restoring and potentially strengthening the JCPOA, offered a demonstrably better path to limiting Iran’s nuclear program than military force. The 12-day bombing campaign, while destructive, is estimated by some analyses to have set back Iran’s nuclear progress by only a short period, perhaps as little as a month. Crucially, these strikes may have prompted Iran to move its stockpile of highly enriched uranium to secret, underground locations, making future monitoring and potential intervention more difficult.
This outcome stands in stark contrast to the original JCPOA, which imposed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities for 10-15 years and included intrusive inspections designed to provide insight into its program. Experts supporting diplomacy argue that sanctions relief and economic engagement, totaling billions in potential trade and investment, could be leveraged to secure stricter compliance from Iran, potentially even leading towards denuclearization in the long term. This approach, they contend, offers a more sustainable and less costly path than perpetual military confrontation or risky calls for regime change without viable “day after” plans, which historical examples suggest can lead to chaos and instability rather than democracy.
Ultimately, understanding the origins of the 12-day conflict necessitates examining the policy choices that sidelined diplomacy. Holding accountable those whose actions or inactions contributed to the failure to secure a nuclear deal, including potentially President Joe Biden’s strategic decisions regarding the JCPOA’s restoration, is presented as a crucial step in learning from this crisis and preventing future escalations. The lessons, according to this perspective, reinforce Obama’s decade-old warning: the failure of diplomacy significantly heightens the risk of war.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and why is it central to the conflict analysis?
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in 2015, was an agreement between Iran and world powers to restrict Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. It is central to this analysis because its collapse, initiated by the U.S. withdrawal under President Trump, removed constraints on Iran’s nuclear activities and monitoring mechanisms. The failure to restore the deal under President Biden is seen by critics as a missed opportunity that increased the likelihood of military conflict, as occurred in the recent 12-day war.
What were the main consequences of the 12-day conflict beyond military action?
Beyond casualties and physical destruction, the conflict had significant repercussions. Economically, it imposed substantial costs on both Israel and Iran, increased global risks like potential oil price spikes and cyberattacks, and threatened regional economic stability. Geopolitically, it diverted international attention and resources from other conflicts, notably the war in Ukraine, potentially benefiting Russia, and raised questions about the consistent application of international law.
Why is diplomacy considered the most effective way to limit Iran’s nuclear program according to the analysis?
The analysis suggests that military strikes, like those conducted during the 12-day conflict, provide only temporary setbacks to Iran’s nuclear program and can prompt Iran to conceal sensitive materials. In contrast, the JCPOA’s diplomatic framework imposed longer-term restrictions and included intrusive inspections. Proponents of diplomacy argue that it offers a more sustainable path to non-proliferation by addressing underlying issues through negotiation, leveraging potential economic benefits, and avoiding the risks of escalation, instability, and unintended consequences associated with military action or calls for regime change without viable plans for the aftermath.
The analysis of the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, involving limited U.S. military action, underscores the critical role of diplomatic engagement in preventing war. The argument that President Joe Biden’s administration missed a key opportunity to restore the Iran nuclear deal highlights the potential consequences of prioritizing other agendas or setting preconditions that hinder negotiation. The severe human and economic costs of the recent conflict, coupled with its wider geopolitical fallout, serve as a stark reminder of the potential price paid when diplomatic avenues are exhausted or deliberately closed. Moving forward, the analysis suggests that a renewed focus on patient, comprehensive diplomacy, learning from past policy failures, is essential to navigate the complex challenges posed by Iran’s nuclear program and prevent future escalations.
