Following his meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on April 7, US President Donald Trump announced the US-Iran meeting in Muscat, Oman (April 12) that: “There are two ways to deal with Iran: militarily, or make a deal.”

National Security Advisor Mike Waltz supported a military solution, while Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and Vice President J.D. Vance supported diplomacy. Trump chose diplomacy. But all options remain on the table, and if diplomacy fails, Trump says, "The other option will solve the problem."

But experts believe there are several reasons why all options are off the table, and why bombing Iran to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear bomb would be absurd.

According to Ted Snyder, an expert on the subject: “Most importantly, and perhaps the only reason that really needs to be mentioned, is that Iran is not seeking a nuclear bomb. In 2003, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s Supreme Leader, issued a fatwa prohibiting nuclear weapons in Islam. The 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, which also “reflects the collective views of the intelligence community,” clearly states that U.S. intelligence “continues to believe that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that [Ayatollah] Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.”

This assessment was also published by the US Department of Defense in its 2022 Nuclear Posture Review, which concluded that "Iran does not currently possess a nuclear weapon, and we currently believe it is not seeking to acquire one."

Perhaps the most absurd reason for bombing Iran to prevent it from pursuing a nuclear bomb is that the United States knows that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb. Since Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program, the second reason for the absurdity of bombing Iran is that it has every legal right to its civilian nuclear program. As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran has the "inalienable right to a civilian program that uses nuclear energy for peaceful purposes."

The United States does not believe that Iran has an illegal nuclear weapons program, and it would be absurd to bomb it simply because it has a legal civilian nuclear program. Third, Iran has already demonstrated that a military solution is not necessary for the Trump administration to achieve its goal of ensuring that Iran does not enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. America's concerns, whether justified or not, could be assuaged by setting verifiable limits on Iran's enrichment levels. Iran demonstrated its willingness to comply with this non-military solution when it agreed to those verifiable limits in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement. Eleven consecutive reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have confirmed that Iran has fully and consistently complied with the obligations it undertook under that agreement.

A military solution to America's concerns about Iran's civilian nuclear program is absurd because the United States has historical evidence that a non-military solution works. A military solution is not arbitrary and absurd only because it is unnecessary; it is even more absurd because it risks not only war with Iran, but a wider regional war. The United States has begun moving military equipment to the region, including aircraft carriers, bombers, and air defense systems. While this was presented as preparation for the possibility of escalating the war with the Houthis, US officials privately said that "the weapons were also part of planning" for a "potential conflict with Iran."

Moreover, simply “supplying U.S. weapons and military assets,” according to a new intelligence assessment presented by Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard, “could ignite a broader conflict with Iran that the United States did not want.” Iran has stated that U.S. military action against its civilian nuclear program would lead to a military response from Iran against U.S. bases in the region (dispersed). Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf said, “If they threaten Islamic Iran, America’s allies in the region and U.S. bases will be insecure, like powder keg.” A military solution threatens war with Iran, and perhaps even a wider regional war.

The fifth reason is that despite all the risks of war with Iran, and perhaps even a wider regional war, the perceived benefit is not worth it. In a remarkable line that has received little attention, the New York Times reported that the goal of the military plans to bomb Iranian civilian nuclear sites being discussed by the United States and Israel "was to set back Tehran's ability to develop a nuclear weapon for a year or more." Risking war with Iran, or even a wider war in the Middle East, to delay Iran's nuclear program—a nuclear program the United States knows Iran does not have—for the sake of setting back the program for just one year is absurd.

According to experts, all these calculations of the costs, benefits, and risks of war are absurd, because everyone knows that the diplomatic track can work. We know it can work because it worked ten years ago with the successful conclusion of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), or the Iran nuclear deal concluded in Vienna in July 2015, and there is every reason to hope that, a decade later, it can work again. In the first round of talks in Oman on April 12, Iran insisted that future direct talks would be contingent on the success of the current indirect talks. At the end of that first round, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi and chief US negotiator Steve Witkoff met face-to-face—not for a few moments, as initially reported, but for 45 minutes. The first round in Oman successfully led to a second round in Rome, and the second round has now led to a third round next Saturday (April 26) in Oman because it was constructive.

Finally, talk of a military solution by a state claiming to lead a global order based on international law is absurd, as launching a preemptive strike against Iran without Security Council approval would violate international law. Diplomacy has a real opportunity to defuse the long and volatile crisis between the United States and Iran. Threats of war are not only unnecessary, they further complicate diplomacy.