Trump used nuclear talks as cover to launch war on Iran: The Atlantic
4 Min Read
One source reportedly told The Atlantic that Trump had been impressed by the Israeli strikes and believed "a little push from us would make it incredibly successful."
-
The White House is illuminated, Saturday, June 21, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)
The Atlantic on Sunday revealed that US President Donald Trump had already decided to launch airstrikes on Iran's nuclear infrastructure days before publicly dangling the prospect of renewed diplomacy.
While claiming on Thursday that Iran still had "a substantial chance of negotiation," Trump had in fact sealed the decision behind closed doors the day prior, in coordination with Israeli military attacks. Four individuals familiar with the planning confirmed that the talk of diplomacy was a deliberate ruse, intended to lull Iranian leadership into complacency.
By Saturday, the mask was off. From the White House, Trump boasted that the airstrikes had "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear facilities, flanked by hawkish figures like Vice President J.D. Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, longtime advocates of toppling governments that defy US dominance and of expanding military intervention across West Asia. "There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran," Trump threatened, echoing a familiar imperial script.
The military assault, timed with Israeli air raids, was less about neutralizing a threat and more about demonstrating dominance. One source reportedly told The Atlantic that Trump had been impressed by the Israeli strikes and believed "a little push from us would make it incredibly successful." This statement underscores a broader geopolitical reality: Washington, once again, followed Tel Aviv's lead, prioritizing Israeli strategic interests over regional stability and international law.
But even as the political theater played out in Washington, cracks began to show. While Defense Secretary Hegseth claimed Iran's program had been "devastated," General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered a more restrained assessment. He admitted that while the sites at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan sustained "severe damage," it was "too soon to say" whether Iran's nuclear capability had been eliminated. Vice President Vance, too, declined to use the word "obliterated," stating instead that the attack had only "substantially delayed" Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, hardly the decisive blow Trump had claimed.
Retired General Joseph Votel, former CENTCOM commander, highlighted the uncertainty, noting that without direct access, damage assessments were speculative at best. "It's not as great as putting your own eyeballs on it," he conceded.
Theater of Aggression
Former UN weapons inspector and US Marine intelligence officer Scott Ritter went further, calling the operation a "grand act of theater." In an interview with Al Mayadeen, Ritter dismantled the administration's claims, revealing that the targeted sites were empty or previously struck by Israel. Iran had already relocated enriched uranium and secured sensitive centrifuge equipment ahead of time. "Nothing of significance was accomplished," Ritter said, suggesting the assault was designed not to degrade Iranian capabilities, but to salvage Trump's domestic political standing amid a crisis of his own making.
Meanwhile, intelligence assessments offered no justification for the strike. As recently as March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard told Congress that Iran was not actively developing a nuclear weapon. Trump dismissed her testimony without evidence: "She's wrong." Days later, Gabbard reversed course on social media, parroting the administration's line about Iran being "weeks to months" away from a bomb, without citing any new intelligence, raising serious concerns about political coercion and the manipulation of intelligence to justify war.
Iranian officials categorically rejected the narrative of defeat. They confirmed no radioactive leakage and reiterated their rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused the US and Israel of crossing a "very big red line" and vowed a response "by all means necessary."
Read more: Iran warns of NPT withdrawal, Strait of Hormuz closure after US attack
What emerges is not the image of a surgical, strategic strike, but a manufactured crisis wrapped in the language of deterrence. This was not a war to prevent catastrophe. It was a war to create one. The timing, the coordination with "Israel," the intelligence contradictions, and the theatrical rhetoric all point to a deliberate effort to provoke Iran and fracture any remaining space for diplomacy.
