Can the world live with a nuclear Iran?

In the 14th chapter of Luke’s Gospel, Jesus advises his followers to count the cost of their commitment, using the analogy of a king preparing for war:

“What king, going to make war against another king, does not sit down first and consider whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? Or else, while the other is still a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks conditions of peace.”

This principle is crucial to the current negotiations between the United States and Iran. The question for America is not simply whether to pursue peace, but whether any negotiated peace can achieve the original objective that justified the use of military force.

I supported President Trump’s decisive action toward Iran. While Operation Midnight Hammer was a decisive strike that significantly set back Iran’s nuclear program, intelligence reports later revealed it was not destroyed. Iran reportedly began rebuilding and reinforcing its nuclear infrastructure soon after.

President Trump has maintained that Iran must not be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon. However, current negotiations show no sign that Tehran will abandon its nuclear ambitions. To the contrary, Iranian officials have declared that their ability to enrich and possess uranium is a non-negotiable red line.

In response, the United States must hold to its own red line. History shows that when red lines become negotiable, they can be seen by adversaries as green lights for aggression. An agreement that leaves Iran as a nuclear-threshold state would fail to achieve the objective that justified Operation Epic Fury.

For more than two decades, Iran has mastered the art of delay, not the art of the deal. From the European-led negotiations in 2003 and the P5+1 talks to the JCPOA and its aftermath, the pattern is consistent: Iran uses negotiations to delay, preserve its options, and continue pursuing its strategic goals.

Successful peace agreements typically depend on three conditions. First, both sides must believe that continued conflict will not improve their position. Second, the cost of pursuing the disputed objective must outweigh the cost of compromise. Third, political leaders must be able to sell the final agreement to their domestic audiences.

This brings us to the central questions:

• Can America, Israel, and the international community live with an Iran that remains a nuclear-threshold state?
• Can the United States improve its position through renewed military action against the Islamist regime?
• Can President Trump successfully sell an agreement that falls short of the stated objective behind Operation Epic Fury?

Just as Jesus warned a king to count the cost before going to war, so too must nations. Before America declares victory or accepts a peace deal, it must ensure the objective that justified the initial cost has been met. The challenge is not merely to secure peace, but to secure a peace that permanently blocks Iran’s path to a nuclear weapon. Failure to do so could force future generations to confront a more dangerous threat under far worse circumstances.