The U.S. and Israel’s joint strikes on Iran, in reaction to what President Donald Trump said was fear of Iran developing a nuclear weapon, has led to a variety of mixed responses from hawks and doves alike.
Early Saturday morning, Trump said in a filmed speech on social media that the U.S. military, gathered on the coast of the Middle East for the past few weeks, began “major combat operations” in Tehran. Operation Epic Fury, which involved B-2 stealth bombers striking Iran’s ballistic missile facilities, also killed Iran’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Trump said in a different Truth Social post.
Trump’s action was lauded by those in the Pentagon and some Republican lawmakers, including House Armed Services Committee Chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) who said in a statement he “commend[s]” Trump for his “decisive action.”
But many in the nonproliferation community disagree.
“Once again, in direct violation of the United States Constitution, President Donald Trump has ordered attacks against Iran without congressional authorization,” Rep. John Garamendi (D-Calif.), a known anti-nuclear advocate and member of the House Armed Services Committee, said in a statement Feb. 28. “This marks the second instance this year in which the President has undertaken military action without the approval of Congress, an action that should concern all Americans.”
Garamendi continued, “For decades, the Iranian regime has violated human rights, created chaos in the Middle East, and supported terrorism around the world. But the decision to attack another nation without clearly articulating the legal justification, strategic objectives, and anticipated consequences to Congress and the American people runs counter to the constitutional framework established by our Founders.”
Washington-based think tank Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) concurred, saying “it is too soon to predict the trajectory of this war and its consequences.”
“Whether or not the United States and Israel succeed in removing the regime, the ongoing major combat operations introduce serious nuclear security and proliferation risks,” NTI said in a statement. “Iran likely retains hundreds of kilograms of highly enriched uranium that can be used in a bomb, stockpiles of advanced centrifuges, and other sensitive capabilities.”
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, an independent nonprofit founded by Albert Einstein and J. Robert Oppenheimer and focused on nuclear risk, also posted a statement saying that “this war is illegal under the UN Charter, which bans military strikes when a country is not attacking or imminently about to attack—neither of which was true of Iran.”
While speaking to the Board of Governors in Vienna, Austria on Monday, Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said there was “no indication” that any remaining nuclear installations in Iran had been “damaged or hit.” However, Grossi said he calls on “all parties to exercise maximum restraint to avoid further escalation.”
“Let me again recall past General Conference resolutions that state that armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place and could result in radioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the State which has been attacked,” Grossi said. “To achieve the long-term assurance that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons and for maintaining the continued effectiveness of the global non-proliferation regime, we must return to diplomacy and negotiations.”
Grossi also said in an interview with CNN that while there were “many elements” of “serious concern” with Iran’s nuclear program. These include the accumulation of large amounts of near military-grade nuclear material and the “lack of transparency” surrounding the program, there was no indication to Grossi that Iran had a “structured, systematic program” to build or construct a nuclear weapon and the regime was not “days or weeks” away from a bomb.
David Albright, a scholar in the community and president of the Washington-based, nonpartisan science nonprofit the Institute for Science and International Security, criticized Grossi’s analysis in a post on X.
“DG Grossi is using an outdated characterization of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, contributing to a false assessment of the threat posed by Iran,” Albright said. “Please DG Grossi, who I respect enormously, stop contributing to the fog that is thick enough.”
The operation’s launch, which Trump claimed was not an attempt at regime change, also followed talks between the administration and the Iranian government over the status of Tehran’s nuclear program, with the president having alluded to the potential of military strikes if demands were not met to end nuclear enrichment initiatives.
“I am deeply concerned that there is no strategy and that this action risks drawing the United States into another prolonged conflict in the Middle East, exactly at odds with the wishes of the American people and the promises made by the President,” Garamendi said.