Former US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken described Donald Trump's strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as "unwise and unnecessary," in an op-ed for The New York Times published on Tuesday.

Blinken argued that the situation should never have reached such a level, as Britain, France, Germany, Russia, China, and the European Union reached an agreement with Tehran on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. However, Trump annulled it in 2018 and offered no replacement, prompting Iran to accelerate its enrichment. "Trump, in essence, is now trying to put out a fire on which he poured gasoline," he said, describing the situation.

Moreover, the former Secretary asserted that under the JCPOA, if Iran were to violate the agreement or decline to renew it when key terms expired after 15 years, the US would detect such actions and retain sufficient time to react, including through potential military options.

Trump tries to put out the fire he ignited

In addition, Blinken emphasized that Iran needed more than just fissile material to create a nuclear bomb; it also needed an explosive weapon, something Iran had not decided to pursue yet, according to US intelligence. If Iran does decide to weaponize, it would need around 18 to 24 months to produce an explosive device, a time window Blinken described as enough for diplomacy, as well as not as urgent as the US president portrayed it.

In this context, he cited experts doubting that Massive Ordnance Penetrators, the bombs the United States used against Iran's nuclear sites, would incapacitate Fordow or other nuclear facilities buried deep in Iran's granite mountains. Blinken said reports suggest Iran's nuclear infrastructure was severely damaged, but not "obliterated" as Trump claimed.

Related News

DPRK’s Chief Diplomat to visit Russia, Belarus before APEC

Venezuela launches coastal defense drills amid US military build-up

US strikes on Iran backfire

Blinken said that during his time in the Biden administration, officials realized that in the case of military action, Iran would protect its stockpile of enriched uranium and preserve the centrifuges it needs to further enrich that stockpile. 

In such a scenario, he added, Iran could conceal its weapons-grade uranium, green-light a nuclear weapons program, and work toward building a nuclear weapon as soon as possible, which would mean Trump's strikes achieved the opposite result of their goal.

He asserted that despite the attacks setting Iran's nuclear program back, Iran could swiftly rebuild in locations that are immune to any future strikes, all while pursuing weaponization of nuclear material. Blinken argued that while "buying time" is good, keeping the JCPOA was the best option available.

The former secretary emphasized that the original agreement Iran had with the United States bought the latter 15 years and evaded the risks of military action against US personnel in the Middle East and even broader escalation like the closing of the Hormuz Strait or operations on United States soil.

Obama, Biden inadvertently enabled Trump

Blinken noted that "paradoxically", the Obama and Biden administrations are what enabled Trump's actions.

The Obama administration had accelerated development of the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (M.O.P.) and drafted contingency plans similar to the operation President Trump authorized, while the Biden administration subsequently ordered its national security team to rigorously test, rehearse, and refine those existing plans.

Moreover, the United States and "Israel" conducted what the former Secretary described as the "largest-ever joint exercise" between the two, which was practically a practice for Trump's actions.

The former Secretary of State concluded by saying that "now that the military die has been cast, I can only hope that we inflicted maximum damage, damage that gives the president the leverage he needs to finally deliver the deal he has so far failed to achieve."