Biden says no to attacking Iran’s nukes after VP candidates play blame game in debate

President Joe Biden (D) on Wednesday told media he would not support an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear sites, after vice presidential candidates and nonprofits sounded their own alarms.

Reporters caught Mr. Biden at Joint Base Andrews, before he boarded Air Force One. When they asked if he would support Israel striking iran’s nuclear sites, he said, “the answer is no.”

Ideologists in Washington had their own opinions. On Wednesday, after the candidates traded barbs over Tehran in a debate, one hawkish, former national security official at the Washington-based Atlantic Institute called for destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities while the Arms Control Association, also in Washington, urged restraint, saying that Iran could rebuild any facilities that are destroyed.

On Tuesday, Iran shot ballistic missiles into Israel in response to Israel’s rejection of a ceasefire deal regarding Gaza and to Israel’s attacks in Lebanon. Media reported that Iran’s revolutionary guard confirmed the strike, and the reasons Tehran made it, in a statement.

During the vice presidential debate, Gov. Tim Walz (D-Minn.) and Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) each blamed the other’s running mate, current Vice President Kamala Harris (D) and former President Donald Trump (R), respectively, for the stockpile of highly enriched uranium Iran has piled up in recent years.

“We’ll sometimes hear revisionist history, but when Donald Trump was in office… we had a coalition of nations that had boxed Iran’s nuclear program in, the ability to advance it,” Walz said. “Donald Trump pulled that program and put nothing else in its place. So Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than they were before because of Donald Trump’s fickle leadership.”

Trump withdrew the U.S. from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), dubbed the “Iran nuclear deal,” in 2018. The JCPOA included provisions that made Iran submit to inspections and limited uranium enrichment to 3.67% during the deal’s duration in exchange for sanctions relief from the U.S., the European Union, and the U.N.

As recently as June, a U.S. State Department spokesperson said that Iran, since the end of the deal, enriched uranium and expanded its nuclear program to levels “that have no credible peaceful purpose.” 

Vance blamed Harris for Iran’s proximity to a nuclear breakout.

“You yourself just said Iran is as close to a nuclear weapon today as they have ever been,” Vance said to the moderator, before turning to Walz and adding, “you blame Donald Trump. Who has been the vice president for the past three-and-a-half years? The answer is your running mate, not mine.”

Asked in Tuesday press briefing, ahead of the debates, if Iran’s nuclear facilities were a “legitimate target” for an Israeli response to Iran’s missiles, a State Department spokesperson said that while there would be consequences for Iran’s attack, “I think it’s appropriate that we discuss those consequences with our Israeli counterparts before we talk about them publicly.”

After the debates, those for and against escalation made their cases. Two statements summed up much of the prevailing sentiment among those who watch the Middle East and nuclear weapons.

“Now is an ideal opportunity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program,” Matthew Kroenig, vice president and senior director at the conservative Washington think tank Atlantic Council Scowcroft, said on the website X Tuesday. “The breakout time is only 1-2 weeks. There is no new nuclear deal in the cards.”

Secretary of State Antony Blinken in July said Iran would need “probably one or two weeks,” given its uranium enrichment levels, to produce enough material for a nuclear weapon.

The Arms Control Association said that trying to infiltrate Iran’s facilities would have unintended negative consequences, however.

“Iran already has the knowledge necessary to build a nuclear explosive device—that knowledge cannot be bombed away,” the Arms Control Association argued in its statement.