The New Yorker:

Why even a successful attack might do less to curb the Islamic Republic’s nuclear ambitions than a diplomatic deal would have.

By Isaac Chotiner

On Saturday, President Donald Trump brought the United States into Israel’s war against Iran. American planes and submarines struck three sites in Iran, including two nuclear enrichment facilities—at Natanz and Fordow—and a complex near Isfahan that was believed to contain stores of uranium. The Israeli government had been pushing for Trump to strike, in part because the Fordow site was believed to be reachable only with American aircraft and weaponry. Prior to Israel’s attack on Iran, which began a little more than a week ago, Trump had repeatedly stated that he wanted to make a nuclear deal with Iran, despite, in his first term, having pulled the U.S. out of Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with the country.

On Saturday night, in a televised address, Trump claimed that the three sites were “completely and totally obliterated,” and said that Iran must now “make peace,” warning of more attacks if they did not. The actual extent of the damage is not yet known, nor is it clear if and how Iran will retaliate. (Trump had announced on Thursday that the decision on whether to strike would be made “within two weeks” and that there remained a possibility of negotiation.)

Go to link