Fact Check: "Israel's attack could improve chances of a U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement."
What We Know
On June 12, 2025, Israel conducted a series of airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, which included significant strikes on key sites such as Natanz and Fordow. This military operation, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, aimed to degrade Iran's nuclear capabilities and military leadership (Brookings). Following these strikes, there was speculation about how this would influence U.S.-Iran negotiations regarding Iran's nuclear program, particularly in light of the upcoming sixth round of negotiations between Washington and Tehran (Brookings).
U.S. officials, including President Donald Trump, have expressed a mixed stance on the matter. Initially, the administration maintained a distance from Israel's actions, but later comments indicated a shift towards supporting Israel's military objectives. Trump suggested that the military campaign could pressure Iran into negotiations for a nuclear deal that would involve zero enrichment of uranium (Brookings). However, experts caution that military strikes alone are unlikely to eliminate Iran's nuclear ambitions and may, in fact, strengthen Iran's resolve to pursue nuclear weapons (Brookings).
Analysis
The claim that Israel's attack could improve the chances of a U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement is nuanced. On one hand, military action may create a sense of urgency for Iran to negotiate, particularly if it perceives a threat to its nuclear program. Some analysts argue that the strikes could force Iran to the negotiating table, as the U.S. might leverage the situation to push for a more favorable agreement (Brookings, The Conversation).
On the other hand, there is significant skepticism regarding the effectiveness of military strikes in achieving long-term diplomatic solutions. Many experts believe that such actions could backfire, reinforcing Iran's commitment to its nuclear program rather than deterring it. The Israeli National Security Advisor has noted that military means alone will not suffice to dismantle Iran's nuclear capabilities and that a comprehensive strategy, including diplomatic efforts, is necessary (Brookings). Furthermore, the potential for escalating conflict could complicate U.S. diplomatic efforts, as Iran may respond aggressively to perceived threats, thereby reducing the likelihood of a successful agreement (MSNBC).
The credibility of the sources used in this analysis is strong, particularly the insights from Brookings, which features a range of experts on foreign policy and security. However, it is essential to recognize that opinions on this matter can vary widely, and the situation is fluid, with developments occurring rapidly.
Conclusion
The verdict on the claim that "Israel's attack could improve chances of a U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement" is Partially True. While military action may create a temporary impetus for negotiations, the long-term effects are uncertain and could potentially reinforce Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than diminish them. The complexity of the geopolitical landscape and the historical context of U.S.-Iran relations suggest that military strikes may complicate rather than facilitate a diplomatic resolution.
