ROBERT MAGINNIS: Iran may be closer to a bomb, but history demands caution now

Last summer, when the U.S.-Israel Attacking Iranian nuclear facilitiesII said the operation was deliberate, not reckless. The June 2025 strikes on Natanz, Fordo, and Isfahan were intended to deny Tehran the ability to break through in the near term and restore deterrence without plunging America into another open-ended crisis. Middle East war.

The goal was clear: to disrupt the program, buy time, and enhance Washington’s influence.

Later intelligence reports indicated that the damage was significant, though not permanent. Iran’s nuclear program has been set back, not eliminated. This distinction was important then, and it is even more important now.

Today, we find ourselves at another critical moment.

president Donald Trump American rose dramatically Military power in the Persian Gulf – Carrier strike groups, fighter aircraft and support assets – amid renewed nuclear tensions. This is not symbolism. It is a dangerous deterrent posture aimed at protecting American forces and demonstrating resolve to Tehran.

This accumulation is legitimate. It enhances credibility. It reduces the risk of miscalculation.

But alongside this position, we are now hearing dramatic claims that Iran could be “About a week away“From the production of weapons-grade uranium.

The US is positioning aircraft carriers and attack platforms across the Middle East as Iran talks shift to Oman

Americans deserve clarity about what this statement means.

Enrichment levels and a deployable nuclear weapon are not the same thing. Taking uranium from 60% enrichment to 90% weapons-grade material is technically faster than enriching from scratch. But building a usable nuclear weapon requires additional steps: work on arming, warhead integration, testing, and a workable delivery system.

Language suggesting that Iran is “one week away” narrows the political space between deterrence and kinetic action. They are the audience’s conditions for urgency. It compresses timelines. It risks turning technical possibilities into a perceived inevitability.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran possesses Enriched uranium to nearly 60%, which is a deeply worrying development. But there has been no public confirmation that Tehran has assembled a nuclear device or moved to verifiable weaponization.

Ayatollah Arsenal Vs. American firepower: The 4 most important Iranian threats and how we respond to them

This distinction is not academic. It’s a strategy.

We have experienced what happens when the worst intelligence assessments turn into political certainty. In 2003, the United States invaded Iraq based on assessments that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. These claims have been proven wrong. The consequences cost the lives of thousands of Americans and reshaped American foreign policy for a generation.

No one should casually invoke this parallel. But we should not ignore that.

The former MTG deputy confirms that the Americans do not want an American war against Iran

If Iran has restored its enrichment chain beyond what was damaged in 2025, present the evidence.

If inspectors are restricted or fired, say so.

If arming activity resumes, show proof.

President Trump’s construction of Iran reflects the scale of the war in Iraq in 2003 as tensions rise

So far, what we see publicly is the threat of enrichment, not confirmed bomb production.

This does not make Tehran benign. Iran’s enrichment levels are dangerous. Its expansion of ballistic missiles and its network of agents is destabilizing the region. The regime continues to challenge American interests and those of our allies.

Deterrence must be credible.

Khanna and Massey threaten to force a vote on Iran with the possibility of a US attack

President Trump is right The strength of the position in the Gulf. This force posture protects American forces and sends a message that the United States will not tolerate aggression. Strategic ambiguity can serve a purpose in diplomacy.

But language suggesting that Iran is “one week away” narrows the political space between deterrence and kinetic action.

They are the audience’s conditions for urgency. It compresses timelines. It risks turning technical possibilities into a perceived inevitability.

The Israelis are keeping their bags packed and ready as Trump considers a possible Iranian strike

If the administration believes that Iran is moving toward a nuclear weapon, the American people deserve a clear, direct explanation from the president himself — backed by documented intelligence shared with Congress.

Don’t spin.

There are no anonymous leaks shaping public perception.

Morning Glory: What will President Donald Trump decide to do with Iran?

No vague warning replaces documented facts.

The United States can strike if necessary. I’ve done it before. But military action must be based on verifiable intelligence and a specific strategic objective – not rhetorical escalation.

Another war in the Middle East will not be surgical or isolated. Its influence will extend to Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, the Gulf and global energy markets. It would strengthen hardliners in Tehran and test American alliances at a volatile moment.

Trump says Iran has 15 days to reach agreement or face ‘unfortunate’ outcome

This does not mean that force should never be used.

This means that the threshold must be high, and the evidence must be clear.

The American people will support strong action when the threat is real and unambiguous. They will not support another war based on vague timetables and worst-case projections.

Click here for more Fox News opinions

We don’t need another war in the Middle East.

We certainly do not need another myth about weapons of mass destruction.

Click here to download the FOX NEWS app

If force becomes necessary, the justification must come clearly and directly from the commander in chief—backed by solid intelligence, not ultimatum.

This is the standard Americans deserve.

Click here to read more from Robert Maginnis

Related article