War won't work: Rethinking the U.S. approach to Iran's nuclear issue

Editor's note: Imran Khalid, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a freelance columnist on international affairs. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

The United States government's announcement that it has struck three Iranian nuclear sites has added another volatile accelerant to an already combustible Middle Eastern landscape. As tensions smolder between Iran and Israel over months of proxy clashes and shadow wars, this latest turn – delivered through a primetime address by U.S. President Donald Trump on June 21 – has brought the region one step closer to all-out confrontation.

While framed as being reassuring to regional allies, such actions risk legitimizing force over diplomacy and setting a dangerous precedent. Trump's stark warning – promising "far greater" future attacks unless Iran "chooses peace" – echoes a familiar, perilous rhetoric: that military coercion is a substitute for diplomacy.

In the aftermath, Tehran issued its predictable condemnations, accusing the United States of aggression and vowing retaliation "at the time and place of its choosing." Regional capitals from Baghdad to Beirut are bracing for fallout – not just in rhetoric, but in the form of missiles and funerals.

This spiral toward escalation is neither new nor inevitable. But it is being hastened by the return of military maximalism in Washington. It is now clear that the Trump administration views the Iranian nuclear issue not as a diplomatic challenge to be defused through patient negotiation, but as a strategic lever to be pulled – repeatedly – at the expense of regional stability.

The logic behind striking nuclear sites in Iran is rooted in flawed assumptions: that such strikes can significantly set back Iran's nuclear progress; that the Iranian leadership can be compelled into submission through American firepower; and that the U.S. can tightly control the consequences of any such gambit. Recent history, from Iraq to Libya, shows these assumptions often yield destabilizing results.

Iran's nuclear issue is not merely about enrichment levels or IAEA access. It is a political dispute shaped by decades of mistrust, regime-change fears, sanctions, and regional rivalries. Addressing such complexity requires not bunker-busting bombs, but sustained dialogue backed by international consensus.

Instead, we are witnessing an effort to resolve an intricate geopolitical dilemma through unilateral violence. The timing – just weeks after Israel's airstrikes in Lebanon and Syria – will hardly convince neutral observers this is anything but an aggressive posture designed to redraw the regional balance of power through force.

The stakes are higher than they may initially appear. Iran's proximity to fragile states like Iraq and Syria, its influence over non-state actors like Hezbollah and the Houthis, and its deep enmity with Israel create a web of potential retaliations. Already, militias in Iraq have fired rockets at U.S. bases in Erbil, while Houthis in Yemen have declared solidarity with Tehran and hinted at new Red Sea operations.

What's needed now is not more military thunder but a renewed commitment to diplomacy. The nuclear issue should return to the framework of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which – before being dismantled under Trump's previous tenure – offered a verifiable, multilateral pathway to constrain Iran's activities in exchange for sanctions relief. No diplomatic accord is perfect, but the alternative – a slide into nuclear brinkmanship – is far worse.

The international community must seize this moment to push for a region-wide de-escalation mechanism. This entails more than urging "restraint" in press statements. It requires credible mediation, robust verification mechanisms, and real incentives for both Tehran and Washington to re-engage diplomatically. The UN Security Council must reassert its relevance in preventing the use of force without consensus. Such actions also raise serious concerns under international law, particularly Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.

Washington's allies in Europe – especially France and Germany – must resist the temptation to follow the U.S. lead blindly. They bear a moral and strategic obligation to revive the channels that once kept this crisis in check. Likewise, rising powers like China and India, with their growing stakes in West Asian security, must be part of the solution – not passive observers of Western militarism.

China, which played a key role in the original JCPOA and recently brokered rapprochement between Iran and Saudi Arabia, has already demonstrated its diplomatic credibility. With deep energy and economic ties across the region and a longstanding commitment to peaceful resolution, Beijing is well-positioned to facilitate renewed dialogue – either through the UN or regional platforms. China, in line with its Global Security Initiative, has consistently advocated for peaceful resolution of nuclear disputes and upholding the principles of sovereignty and non-interference.

Ultimately, the illusion that military might can resolve political conflict has been disproven time and again across the Middle East. From Baghdad to Beirut, from Tripoli to Kabul, the ghosts of failed interventions still roam. The U.S. approach toward Iran risks adding Tehran to that tragic list. In a region already plagued by despair, war is not just unwise – it is unforgivable.

The world must not let the drums of war drown out the fragile, essential voice of diplomacy.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)