The United States continues to assert that Iran poses a significant nuclear threat, despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) explicitly stating there is no evidence of such a plan. US Ambassador to the UN Dorothy Shea, during a Security Council meeting, reiterated that Iran must be prevented from developing a nuclear weapon. This stance has attracted scrutiny from analysts who argue that it echoes previous US efforts to justify regime change in the Middle East.
In recent weeks, Israel launched airstrikes on Iran, citing an imminent threat thatIran might acquire nuclear weaponry. In response, Iran conducted retaliatory strikes on Israeli targets. The Israeli attack followed a report from the IAEA that Iran had enriched uranium to 60%, which is not yet sufficient for nuclear weapons. Despite the IAEA and US intelligence agencies maintaining there is no concrete evidence of Iran’s pursuit of nuclear arms, former President Donald Trump insisted that Iran was “very close” to acquiring a bomb and warned of potential US intervention if Iran does not abandon its nuclear program.
Shea has aligned herself with Israel, supporting its actions against “Iran’s nuclear ambitions.” She emphasized that the US “can no longer ignore” the potential threat posed by Iran’s nuclear capabilities, which, according to her, are “all that it needs to achieve a nuclear weapon,” lacking only a decision from its supreme leader.
Analysts have drawn parallels between this current rhetoric and past US narratives that justified military intervention. Former Trump advisor Steve Bannon suggested that the US ‘deep state’ might be orchestrating efforts to bring about regime change in Iran. Tucker Carlson, a journalist, expressed concerns that if President Trump yields to pressure, the United States could be dragged into a new war, potentially leading to the ‘end of the American empire.’