Blinken calls Trump’s move a mistake—absence of diplomacy, regional blind spots, and quiet deference to Israeli intelligence brought us here, too.
Candor about Trump’s recklessness is welcome.
Antony J. Blinken, Secretary of State under President Joe Biden, recently wrote an editorial titled, “Trump’s Iran Strike Was a Mistake. I Hope It Succeeds.” It is a sobering and insightful reflection on the dangerous path we now find ourselves on with Iran. Blinken rightly underscores the sheer recklessness of Trump’s decision to abandon the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (J.C.P.O.A.) and replace it with nothing. That act poured gasoline on an already volatile situation. The strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, as Blinken notes, was indeed “unwise and unnecessary.” That kind of candor from someone who worked closely on this issue lends needed weight and urgency to the argument for diplomacy over escalation.
When diplomacy is absent, missed opportunities arise.
However, one cannot help but ask: Why, in the four years since Trump left office, did the Biden administration—despite its stated commitment to restoring diplomacy—not succeed in negotiating a new nuclear deal with Iran? To be fair, the task of untangling the web of Trump-era foreign policy blunders was Herculean. But time was not on our side, and by failing to rebuild the diplomatic framework that once constrained Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the Biden administration arguably allowed the situation to fester.
Underappreciated leadership deserves a harder look.
That said, the broader picture of the Biden presidency deserves more nuanced reflection. People love to pile on about Biden’s age and the so-called “cover-up” of his cognitive fitness. Yet they often overlook a more important truth: Joe Biden was a solid and effective leader who accomplished what is most essential in a president—he governed. He righted a ship that had been driven wildly off course and steered it back toward calmer waters. Was it perfect? Of course not. But his administration was marked by competence, discipline, and deep experience, staffed by individuals who worked quietly and effectively to undo massive institutional damage. That matters. That counts, especially amid turbulent global waters.
Regional contradictions.
Still, the Biden administration’s posture in the Middle East remains deeply troubling. The green-lighting—whether tacit or explicit—of Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza and its repeated strikes on Iranian proxies throughout the region has not only escalated tensions but also arguably undermined U.S. credibility as an honest broker. Far from containing Iran, this approach has deepened instability, increased civilian suffering, and hardened extremist narratives across the region.
Israeli intelligence calls the shots.
Then there’s the issue of intelligence. The Israeli-provided intelligence that reportedly helped greenlight both the Iraq War and the most recent U.S. strikes on Iran is now being praised for its precision. Yet these are the same intelligence agencies that failed to anticipate the extensive planning for Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks. How could they be so precise now, and so blind then? That inconsistency raises urgent questions—not only about the reliability of intelligence, but also about the political uses of what might be called “selective certainty.”
Blinken’s editorial reveals the paradox of diplomacy.
Blinken’s editorial captures the deep ambivalence of former officials who oppose a strike yet hope it “succeeds.” But this is not a time for hedging. It is a time for reckoning—with the cost of delay, the politics of escalation, and the slow erosion of opportunities for peace. The Biden administration had a chance to re-engage with Iran. That window of opportunity may now be closing. The question is not only whether the strikes were justified—it’s whether the diplomacy that could have prevented it ever truly had a chance.
