Five academics and former diplomats

The U.S. military strikes on key Iranian nuclear sites have reignited long-standing debates over Washington’s strategy in the Middle East. While President Trump hailed the attacks as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions, reactions from regional and international experts reveal a far more divided picture.

Shortly before the Hamas-led Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and the war in Gaza, the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia were in the process of aligning more closely to counter Iran’s regional influence. But the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities during the 12-day war between Israel and Iran marks a shift from shared strategic goals to the coordinated use of military force.

Analysts note that while diplomatic alignment has long existed on paper, the airstrikes signal a new phase of direct, operational collaboration.

From calls for regime change to warnings of legal overreach and diplomatic collapse, the strikes have exposed deep fractures in how policymakers and analysts view the path to security and stability in the region.

Only regime change in Iran can bring “peace and stability,” according to John Bolton

Bolton, who served as national security adviser in Trump’s first term and as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, said he “wouldn’t have terminated the air campaign as soon as Trump did,” and would’ve wanted to see Iran placed under intense surveillance.

Destroying Iran’s nuclear program, he said, requires “breaking the links” in nuclear production and for now he’s satisfied with the “enormous damage” from these strikes.

“The effort to destroy a complex program involves breaking the links in the nuclear fuel cycle at multiple points so that it is ultimately a project of years to put it back together. That’s why I’m happy,” he said. “I’ve been spending a long time emphasizing the uranium conversion facility at Isfahan. It was another key link in the process. It has been destroyed.”

Bolton says there’s no contradiction in Trump’s actions, noting, “He kind of zigged into doing the right thing, and he zagged back out by terminating it too early. He’ll probably zig and zag for the next six or eight months — that’s just how he is. He doesn’t have a national security strategy.”

Ultimately, though, he said the “only long term answer to get peace and stability in the Middle East and around the world is to overthrow the ayatollahs.”

Only way forward may be direct U.S.-Iran negotiations, former Iranian official says

“What could be worse than this? How can Iran trust?” Hossein Mousavian said.

Like Bolton, he sees a constantly shifting approach from Trump, but he believes that direct negotiations are the only way forward.

“I have proposed there is a need for direct negotiations between Iran and the U.S. I mean, I really don’t see any other way because [the International Atomic Energy Agency] proved it is completely helpless,” Hossein Mousavian said. “Because by the charter of the IAEA, if a nuclear weapon state is attacking a non-nuclear weapon state, this agency should come to support the non-nuclear weapon state. But they did nothing. I hope President Trump would go for a serious, sincere, comprehensive dialogue and would stop these zigzagging positions.”

Diminished nuclear capabilities may force Iran to reconsider options domestically and with allies, a think-tank analyst says

Jonathan Panikoff, a former intelligence officer who now directs the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council, says Iran’s military capabilities have been “severely degraded.” He sees the potential for diplomacy, possibly mediated by Oman, Norway or Switzerland.

“I think that pathway exists, but I think it’s going to take quite a lot of cajoling over the coming, frankly, weeks and months,” Panikoff says. “You could even imagine, potentially, an outside actor like China trying to convince the Iranians to come back.”

The latest U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran push boundaries of international law, Middle East expert says

Vali Nasr, a Middle East scholar at Johns Hopkins University, notes that U.S. and Israeli military actions in Iran signal that the countries are willing to bypass diplomatic norms and could reshape security perceptions among countries in the region.

He says, “The regime is still standing,” and emphasizes that “the signal here is that the United States and Israel are willing and capable to settle all issues militarily and that international law, rules, diplomacy, et cetera, won’t stand in their way.”

Nasr warns this approach will “have a chilling impact on all countries in the region, be it their enemies or allies,” fundamentally changing how security is perceived beyond Iran and Israel.

Israel exaggerates nuclear threat and war doesn’t spare civilians, Iranian academic says

Setareh Sadeqi, a professor at the University of Tehran’s Faculty of World Studies, says Israel’s claims about Iran’s nuclear program are greatly exaggerated. Sadeqi says that war harms everyone, including innocent civilians.

Sadeqi dismisses Israel’s long-standing claim that Iran is “one month away” from nuclear capability, arguing, “While I totally disagree with nuclear weapons, I think if Israel, Pakistan, India, the U.S., France, and other countries have the right to have nuclear weapons, then any other country should also have it, and Iran does not have one.”

The Israeli government denies accusations of genocide.

Despite the rising tensions, Sadeqi said that normal life in Tehran continues. “And when war starts, it does not distinguish between pro-government and anti-government citizens. It kills everyone. That’s what Israel has been doing,” she said.

This piece was edited for digital by Obed Manuel and James Hider. The Morning Edition team, including Adam Bearne, Olivia Hampton and Mo Elbardicy, edited the expert interviews for radio.