Statement on Threat of Possible U.S. Strikes on Iran
Feb. 20, 2026
Another U.S. aerial military strike on Iran, as President Trump said today he is considering, would not advance the goal of blocking Iran’s potential pathways to acquire nuclear weapons if its leaders were to decide to do so. Rather, a U.S. attack would undermine ongoing diplomacy between Iran and the United States and damage efforts to secure return international inspectors to sensitive sites that were bombed in 2025 by Israel and the United States. Even a “limited” U.S. military strike runs a serious risk of igniting a wider, more intense, and prolonged regional conflict, and such an attack would be inconsistent with the U.S. and international law.
American military action in June 2025 severely disrupted Iran’s uranium enrichment program, even if the operation did not ‘obliterate’ the program, as the President initially claimed. In the wake of those attacks, Iran’s major uranium enrichment sites remain idle but it does still retain significant quantities of enriched uranium. However, there is no indication Iran is close to “weaponizing” its nuclear material that justifies unilateral military strikes on Iranian nuclear, military, or leadership targets.
Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed away. Further military action would lead us further away from the necessary objective of accounting for Iran’s remaining stockpile of highly enriched uranium (HEU) and once again derail negotiations to effectively and verifiably block its potential pathways to the bomb.
Iranian and U.S. officials only recently resumed talks to resolve mutual concerns and both sides should continue to work without delay to arrive at pragmatic solutions that address international concerns about Iran's residual nuclear capabilities and materials stockpiles.
At this point, when Iran may finally be prepared to provide guarantees - including a resumption of intrusive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency and a possible “suspension” of uranium enrichment for a certain period of time - further U.S. military attacks on Iran would very likely drive the Iranian regime away from negotiations and strengthen the argument inside Iran that only possession of nuclear weapons can protect the regime from further attacks by the United States. Other nations - in the Middle East and beyond - will likely draw a similar conclusion, raising the risk of wider proliferation of nuclear weapons in the year ahead.
A U.S. bombardment in support of unarticulated, vague, or unrealistic goals would not advance the current negotiations between Iran and the U.S. Instead, it would doom those talks to failure. Rather than intimidating Iran into submission, it is more likely to cause leaders in Tehran to react with an unprecedented level of attacks on U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf region and partners throughout the Middle East, which could soon become a long, expensive and bloody regional war.
As we noted last year, unilateral military action against Iran would also be inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution, which gives the power to declare war to the Congress. There is no standing authorization for the use of military force against Iran, as required by the War Powers Act. Furthermore, the rational for any U.S. military action against Iran has not been debated, let alone, authorized by the UN Security Council. At a time when the Administration is seeking to make America “great again," many of our partners around the world will see this as a clear violation of international law, further diminishing U.S. legitimacy and influence on the world stage.
At this critical juncture, the Arms Control Association calls upon the Administration not to undertake unilateral military action against Iran and to actively dissuade Israel, which itself possesses nuclear weapons, from launching its own strikes on Iran.
Before the president unilaterally commits U.S. forces into a conflict overseas, we call upon Congress to exercise its Constitutional duty and to exercise its Constitutional authority to thoroughly consider whether it should approve or disapprove a war of choice against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
— Thomas Countryman, Chair of the Board of Directors, Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director, Kelsey Davenport, Director for Nonproliferation Policy