ردیاب بحران ایران-خلیج فارس ۲۰۲۶
CC
Events Archive
strikeMar 14, 2026

Past presidents claimed Iran couldn’t have nuclear weapons — Trump is the only one to take action

Summary

Past presidents claimed Iran couldn’t have nuclear weapons — Trump is the only one to take action Every past president since Bill Clinton, Republican and Democrat alike, has declared that Iran couldn’t be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. Not one acted to prevent it. Every president since Ronald Reagan has condemned Iran’s role in terrorism against American citizens, interests and allies. Not one acted to stop it. Instead each president left his successor with a more dangerous Iran and a more complicated threat to address. Last June President Trump undertook a limited military operation designed to interrupt Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and discourage the country from continuing its nuclear program. In the face of Iran’s refusal to forswear nuclear weapons and evidence that it was rapidly increasing the number, sophistication and range of its missiles, Trump began the current military campaign. If he hadn’t acted, his successor would have been left with an even more dangerous choice than his predecessors left him. Three or four years from now, the Iranian missiles now hitting Iran’s neighbors could be hitting Berlin or London, perhaps even New York or Washington—perhaps with a nuclear device or at least a dirty bomb. No sensible person wants a war, a president least of all. Wars destroy lives, waste treasure and usually are unpopular. But the widespread hostility to this military action seems untethered to any serious discussion of the merits. What is the alternative? Obviously, few are prepared to say it is simply to permit religious madmen who swear “death to America” and back up their threats with terrorism to secure nuclear weapons and the capability to deliver them. The scope and scale of Iran’s response show how much its military capabilities have progressed, and how dangerous it would have been to permit them to increase further. We tried it all For three decades we have tried everything that each president could think of. We’ve tried being nice, talking tough, moral suasion, negotiated agreement, economic sanctions. None worked. The problem is that there is only one language Iran’s leaders understand. I understand some of the hostility to Trump’s action. The isolationist wing of the Republican Party and the pacifist wing of the Democratic Party each are wrapped in the fantasy that we can afford to ignore the capabilities and intentions of enemies because they are thousands of miles away. Two hundred years ago that view was credible. One hundred years ago it was plausible. Today it takes only one missile carrying a nuclear or dirty bomb to get through our defenses, or one such device smuggled into this country, to devastate a city. I also understand — and deplore — the fringes of both parties that apparently hate Israel and Jews so much that they oppose any action to neutralize Israel’s enemies. What is harder to understand, and particularly troubling for our country, is opposition rooted simply in antipathy toward Trump himself. We used to say that politics stops at the water’s edge. That was never completely true; the willingness to bludgeon a president over foreign policy for domestic political gain is as old as Vice President Thomas Jefferson’s attacks on President John Adams. Yet for most of our history we have given the president the benefit of the doubt. More important, criticisms have historically been based on policy differences over the military action at hand, not knee-jerk opposition to the president himself. History lesson Many Republicans supported Clinton’s military actions and President Obama’s surge in Afghanistan; many Democrats supported President George W. Bush’s actions in Afghanistan and (at least initially) Iraq. More Republicans than Democrats probably supported President Lyndon B. Johnson’s actions in Vietnam. More important still, even when we believed a president’s actions were misguided, we almost always wanted him to succeed if possible. Some efforts to curtail what the president is doing in Iran seem motivated simply by a desire not to give him a win — even if it means a loss for America. Get opinions and commentary from our columnists Subscribe to our daily Post Opinion newsletter! Thanks for signing up! When North Korea invaded South Korea President Harry S. Truman acted to stop it. It was so unpopular that Truman didn’t seek re-election in 1952. Dwight Eisenhower was elected on the promise that he would go to Korea and end the war. But while Truman was president, lawmakers on both sides supported Truman, even when he removed the popular Gen. Douglas MacArthur from his command. Truman’s successful defense of South Korea began a four-decade bipartisan effort to contain, and ultimately end, communism as a global threat. One wonders what the result would have been if he faced a country as divided and partisan as today’s. Come together Republicans, including Trump, bear a share of the blame for the divisiveness and extreme partisanship that has stunted our ability to cooperate and work together. Those of us who generally oppose Trump but who recognize the threat Iran poses need to support the military action not because we owe anything to Trump but because we owe it to ourselves, our country and our children. If we opposed the war and succeeded in pressuring Trump to curtail it before the mission is accomplished, we would have the satisfaction of defeating someone we generally oppose, which might help ourselves politically. But America would be worse for it. America’s national security is too important to hold hostage to partisanship. We Democrats need to begin by asking what our position would be, and why, if the action had been taken by Clinton, Obama or Biden. I’m not counting on it, but maybe in 2029, when a Democrat is in the White House, our Republican neighbors will return the favor, and judge that president’s efforts to keep our nation safe on the merits and not merely obstruct. If we believe that Iran presents a serious threat, we need to support the president on this issue. There’s plenty to disagree with him about, and we don’t need to like or admire him. But on Iran we should be on common ground. Not primarily because we want to reduce partisanship in foreign affairs — although that is conceivable. Not because the voters will reward us for a more measured response — although I hope they will. But because it is the right thing to do for our country, our children and the Democrat who will succeed Trump as president. David Boies is a founding partner of the law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner. From The Wall Street Journal.

Actors involved

USIranIsrael

Sources

See this event through different lenses

Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.

Compare Perspectives

Community Notes

Community Notes

Loading notes...

Related events

strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxy
1 source

PARIS: The head of the International Energy Agency said on Tuesday (Jul 21) that renewed fighting in the Mideast increases concerns over energy supplies but that the market still has cushions to absorb the impact. "The escalation in hostilities affecting the Strait of Hormuz and energy infrastructure in the region increases security of supply concerns and uncertainty over the market outlook," IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol said in a statement.

"For the moment, crude oil markets continue to benefit from several cushioning factors," he added, pointing to increased exports from several countries and Saudi and United Arab Emirates oil reaching markets by alternative routes. However, Saudi Arabia's main alternative route of using a pipeline to load tankers in the Red Sea port of Yanbu is under threat as Iran's Yemeni allies, the Houthis, declared they would blockade Saudi Arabia's ports.

Oil markets have for months feared that the Houthis would return to attacking shipping in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden - as they did during the Gaza war - cutting off yet more crude from global markets. The initial market reaction to the announcement by the Houthis was restrained, however, as Iran indicated that mediation efforts were still underway, calming investor jitters.

"Threats to the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, which has become increasingly important as a route to bypass the Strait of Hormuz, exacerbate these concerns further," said Birol, referring to the narrow passage between the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. The IEA, in addition to advising its industrialised nation members, also helps them coordinate the release of their strategic oil reserves in reaction to market disruptions.

Birol noted that ongoing government releases from these reserves have provided considerable relief to markets, and that nations continue to hold ample reserves. However, he warned "there is no room for complacency on oil security" and pointed to a drawdown of available commercial inventories, with low refining activity contributing to a tighter supplies of refined oil products like petrol and diesel than for crude oil.

Birol noted that additional supplies of liquefied natural gas from the United States and Canada have offset about 70 per cent of lost supply via the Strait of Hormuz. However, further delays in resuming Gulf exports "will be felt by all LNG importers, including Europe as it looks to refill its gas storage for next winter", he warned.

strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranProxyEURussiaChina
1 source

US stock futures rose, with Nasdaq futures gaining 1.4% and S&P futures up 0.5% as of 7:20 a.m. ET, led by semiconductor stocks after gains in Japan and South Korea. A report indicated TSMC plans price increases, while overnight events included a Houthi-imposed blockade on Saudi Arabia amid tensions involving Iran.

Trading showed higher commodity prices, a steeper yield curve, and a flat dollar, with upcoming data releases including the ADP weekly employment change and Philadelphia Fed non-manufacturing index.

Location: Arak
strikeUnverifiedUSIranProxy
1 source

Reports indicate ongoing US-Iran tensions into a tenth day, including a tanker strike in the Strait of Hormuz and Houthi threats to Red Sea shipping. US Central Command conducted strikes on Iranian command, missile, and air defense sites, while Reuters reported mediator proposals for a 10-day ceasefire and statements from both sides outlining conditions for halting attacks.

Bloomberg data showed Hormuz transits reduced to six vessels as of Tuesday morning.

Location: Red Sea
strikeUnverifiedUSIsraelIranProxy
1 source

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — Iran attacked a tanker in the Strait of Hormuz early Tuesday, forcing its crew to abandon the ship, while the United States conducted yet another round of airstrikes targeting the Islamic Republic as they struggle over control of the key waterway.

The 10 consecutive nights of U.S. airstrikes haven’t compelled Tehran to loosen its grip on the strait, through which about a fifth of all crude oil and natural gas traded once passed in peacetime. Even as the U.S. and Iran inch closer to all-out war again, Iran’s interior minister traveled to Pakistan, a key mediator in the conflict, for talks.

However, it remains unclear just what new deal could be reached to end the fighting. The interim deal signed last month that was meant to end the fighting has crumbled. Shipping through the Strait of Hormuz has largely stalled. And as fighting intensifies, both sides have targeted civilian infrastructure relied on by millions of people.

“Iran and groups supportive of Iran may target other U.S. interests overseas or at locations associated with the United States and Americans throughout the world,” the U.S. State Department said in a new warning to Americans. The escalation has pushed oil prices higher in recent weeks.

Benchmark Brent crude traded Tuesday above $88 a barrel and regular gasoline in the U.S. climbed to an average of $4 a gallon, keeping pressure on Americans’ wallets ahead of midterm elections this fall. Meanwhile, the U.S. military identified two soldiers who were killed in Jordan in attacks that left a third person missing.

Separately, the military confirmed another death in Iraq on Saturday during the “controlled detonation” of a downed Iranian drone. President Donald Trump took to social media on Monday to warn that “Every time Iran kills an American Soldier they will pay for that killing many times over!

” Trump was planning to attend a ceremony on Tuesday evening at Dover Air Force Base, where at least one service member’s remains were due to arrive. US strikes come as ships attacked The U.S. military’s Central Command said Tuesday it targeted “Iranian military command centers, maritime capabilities, missile and drone launch sites and air defense systems.

” It released more footage of bombings that targeted sites in Iran. “American forces remain postured and prepared to hold Iran accountable for unwarranted aggression toward civilian mariners seeking to freely and openly transit the strait,” the command said.

Iranian state media reported that explosions were heard in Fars, Hormozgan, Ilam, Kerman and Sistan and Baluchistan provinces. However, traffic through the strait has slowed to a crawl during the latest violence. Lloyd's List Intelligence said only three ships transited the strait on Sunday.

The British military’s United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations center said a tanker came under attack early Tuesday in the strait off Oman, forcing the crew to abandon the vessel. Iran’s paramilitary Revolutionary Guard claimed the attack, as well as two other attacks on ships Monday in the waterway.

The route around Oman has been the one the U.S. military has encouraged ships to travel to avoid Iran’s control. The UKMTO separately reported Tuesday that another previously unknown attack on a ship took place early the previous day. Tehran also hit U.

S.-allied countries throughout the Middle East. Jordan military's said Tuesday that Iran targeted it with five drones and three missiles, all of which were shot down. Bahrain sounded its missile alert sirens Tuesday afternoon as another Iranian barrage targeted the island kingdom, which is home to the U.

S. Navy's 5th Fleet. Nearly 100 US injuries since early July The Pentagon’s chief spokesperson said nearly 100 U.S. service members have been injured since the U.S. restarted strikes on July 7, and 96% of them have returned to duty.

“The vast majority of injuries experienced were minor concussions,” Sean Parnell posted Monday on X in response to a New York Times report that the Pentagon has withheld information about troop injuries from Iranian strikes. He denied that the Pentagon was hiding data about injuries.

However, the Defense Casualty Analysis System, the military’s clearinghouse for reporting deaths and injuries in conflict, has not been updated as of Monday night with the latest attacks. Yemen rebels threaten attacks on other Mideast waterway Yemen’s Houthi rebels announced a maritime embargo against Saudi Arabia on Monday.

The Houthis, who are backed by Iran, said they would block shipping between the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden by targeting the Bab el-Mandeb, a maritime chokepoint like the Strait of Hormuz, in response to an attack on Sanaa International Airport last week that they blamed on Saudi Arabia.

With the Strait of Hormuz blocked, Saudi Arabia has been relying on a pipeline to the Red Sea to get millions of barrels of oil out to market. The Houthis earlier demonstrated their ability to disrupt shipping there when they targeted ships for months over the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, with over 100 vessels attacked.

Saudi Arabia’s military said it would keep the waterway open. “All Houthi threats against transiting vessels will be dealt with swiftly and firmly, as such threats are a blatant violation of international law and fall under acts of maritime piracy,” said Maj.

Gen, Turki al-Malki, a Saudi military spokesman. A glimmer of hope for diplomacy Pakistan has intensified diplomatic efforts in recent days to resuscitate the interim deal. Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni arrived in Islamabad on Monday for two days of talks with Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and others.

On Sunday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters that the U.S. is still open to negotiating with Iran but that “it has to be real.” “If the door opens to diplomacy — if the guys that want to do something productive for Iran win and take control of that system, or take control of the negotiations — that’ll be a very positive development,” Rubio said.

“That’s not where we are tonight, unfortunately.” Iranian authorities on Sunday said at least 50 people have been killed and 517 wounded in the latest rounds of U.S. strikes. Since the war began on Feb. 28, 17 U.S. service members have been killed.