Editorial: Nuke diplomacy a dud, now's the time for action

Boston Herald editorial staff, Boston Herald on Mar 5, 2026

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

“Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch.”

Former President Barack Obama said that in 2015. A little over a decade later, it’s apparent that they gave him little heed.

When U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner engaged in indirect talks last month in both Oman and Switzerland, “Both the Iranian negotiators said to us directly with, you know, no shame, that they controlled 460 kilograms of 60% (enriched uranium),” Witkoff told Fox News host Sean Hannity. “And they’re aware that that could make 11 nuclear bombs, and that was the beginning of their negotiating stance.”

Some opening.

“We, of course, responded that the president feels we have the inalienable right to stop you dead in your tracks,” Witkoff continued.

Trump made good on his word, ordering military strikes on Iran on Saturday.

Strikes were in Obama’s back pocket when he addressed concerns over Iran’s nuclear goals. “It’s been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options — including possible military options — on the table to achieve that objective,” he said.

Obama’s weapon was diplomacy, but for that to work, both parties have to be sincere in their aims. From Witkoff’s report, that was a wash from Iran.

But as swiftly as “Operation Epic Fury” got underway, so too did protests and slams against Trump for using military force. There have been the usual marches around the country, signs, excoriations from members of Congress, all under the same umbrella of resistance.

Which is odd, given that before last Saturday, the majority of Americans were worried about Iran. A poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that half of U.S. adults are “extremely” or “very” concerned that Iran’s nuclear program posed a direct threat to the United States. About 3 in 10 were “moderately” concerned and only about 2 in 10 were “not very” concerned or “not concerned at all.”

Most Americans, 61%, said Iran is an “enemy” of the U.S.

And yet since the strikes on Iran started, only one in four Americans approves of them, while about half — including one in four Republicans — believe Trump ‌is too willing to use military force, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Nearly 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of the U.S. decision to take military action in Iran, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS.

So we’ve known Iran’s been trying to build nuclear weapons for years, a majority consider the country our enemy, half are concerned that their nuclear program poses a threat to America, and yet Trump is under fire for taking the military option.

Diplomacy should always be the first option. But as the report on negotiations by Witkoff illustrates, that works only if the other side doesn’t open talks with a declaration that they can amass a nuclear arsenal.

You don’t get the ability to build 11 nuclear weapons just to keep them around as conversation pieces.

Taking a “wait and see” approach with Iran could have been catastrophic.

_____