Deterrence, Diplomacy, and the Death Spiral of Leverage: Why the U.S. Bombed Iran's Nuclear Sites

In light of the recent U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, this piece explores the enduring logic of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), the failure of coercive diplomacy, and the strategic reasoning behind nuclear deterrence. Drawing on my firsthand experience in the U.S. Air Force supporting nuclear weapons systems, I examine why nations like Iran pursue nuclear capability—not for aggression, but to avoid the fate of countries like Libya and Ukraine that surrendered theirs.

This essay dissects why powerful nations resist nuclear proliferation—not purely out of fear of war, but because each new nuclear state erodes the ability to coerce, invade, or control weaker nations. Through historical examples and political science frameworks, I explain how the 2015 Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) was a working model of diplomacy—and why its collapse under Trump escalated tensions to the point we see today.

But the stakes go deeper. The rise of Christian nationalism in the U.S., clerical theocracy in Iran, and regional hardliners in Israel is driving foreign policy away from pragmatic diplomacy and toward ideologically fueled confrontation.

I argue that lasting peace in the Middle East is not just a matter of treaties—it requires an ideological shift. Until that happens, the best we can do is de-escalate, rebuild trust through structured diplomacy, and restore the JCPOA framework as a proven path forward. Because when diplomacy fails, the alternative isn’t dominance—it’s disaster.