Oleh Shamshur, diplomat and former Ukrainian ambassador to the United States (2005–2010) and France (2014–2020), spoke to The Ukrainian Week about the US strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, the rhetoric and approval ratings of the American president, and the shifting global balance of power.
— In a new assessment, the CIA chief has said that US strikes have “seriously damaged” Iran’s nuclear programme, according to The New York Times. Was American intervention justified, and what consequences can we already observe?
— The key question right now is just how severe the damage to Iran’s nuclear programme actually is—and how much weight we should give to President Trump’s claims of its total destruction, especially given that more measured assessments are also circulating. It’s clear that this issue has entered the realm of political theatre. For Donald Trump, it is politically vital that his declaration of “total victory” holds up to scrutiny.
As for the strike itself, I believe it was the right call. The Islamic Republic of Iran has long acted as a destabilising force in the region, undermining global security and sponsoring terrorism.
If the US strikes have indeed dealt irreparable damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and set its programme back by several years, then the operation can be seen as both justified and successful. That said, we have to recognise the risk that this action could push Iran to accelerate its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. It’s a concern that many analysts have raised, and it’s not one that can be dismissed lightly.
In the end, it’s still too early to draw definitive conclusions. We’ll need to see the final assessment of the air and missile strikes, and how the situation evolves—both in the wider region and inside Iran itself. Will the protest movement gain fresh energy, or will the public instead close ranks around the current regime? That, for now, remains an open question.
— A few days ago, Donald Trump announced what he described as a full and comprehensive ceasefire between Israel and Iran. But not long after, he turned around and accused both sides of breaching it. In a conversation with a journalist at the NATO summit, he compared Israel and Iran to “children fighting in a schoolyard.” How would you assess the US president’s rhetoric around these events?
— As I’ve already mentioned, it’s politically vital for Trump that the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities are seen as a resounding success. And, above all, this is a matter of domestic politics. A large segment of the president’s base—and not just his base—is uneasy with the fact that the United States has inserted itself into the Israel–Iran confrontation, effectively becoming a party to the conflict. This raises the spectre of another drawn-out US military engagement in the Middle East, despite Trump having campaigned on the promise to end what he called the “forever wars.”
Trump is keen to signal, both to the American public and the global audience, that he is embracing Ronald Reagan’s much-cited doctrine of “peace through strength.”
The recent strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities is being portrayed not just as a military action, but as a strategic move designed to push Iran back to the negotiating table—to secure a deal that would bring about a ceasefire, curtail Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, and restore stability to the region—crucially, on terms that favour the United States.
Going back to his schoolyard fight analogy, it’s clear Trump wants to send a message—not only to Israel and Iran but also to the wider world and America’s allies—that he is firmly in control on the global stage. He is determined to reinforce his persona as a decisive, strong leader, one who can shape international affairs and command respect through force and resolve.
— Citing The Economist/YouGov poll, Axios reports that 60% of Americans oppose their country’s involvement in the armed conflict between Israel and Iran. Political affiliation appears to make little difference: 65% of Democrats, 61% of independents, and 53% of Republicans are against US intervention. So, what impact might the strikes on Iran have on support for Trump?
— Ultimately, public opinion in the US will hinge on several factors: the actual extent of damage caused by the strikes, whether the operation helps pave the way for a diplomatic solution, and—most critically—whether the United States risks being drawn into another prolonged conflict.
It’s important to recognise that many of Trump’s supporters have close family members affected by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. For them, avoiding a repeat of those conflicts—wars fought predominantly by ordinary Americans—is paramount. More broadly, there is a deep and widespread fatigue across American society with these so-called “endless wars” fought in distant regions. It is telling that although the push to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan was initiated by Trump, Joe Biden chose to continue on that same path.
— The world is going through a period of major geopolitical upheaval, with more and more countries stepping in to influence how things unfold. Are we seeing the emergence of a new global balance of power?
— What we’re seeing are tectonic shifts in international relations. Biden was right to describe it as a confrontation between democracies and authoritarian regimes. Yet the situation is complicated by the fact that Western democracies themselves are undergoing a profound transformation—a crisis, really—whose final shape remains uncertain. This is evident in the growing strength of both far-right and far-left movements.
Meanwhile, the countries forming the group of aggressors—Russia, China, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and North Korea—are acting with increasing assertiveness. It remains uncertain who will come out on top in the battle for influence over the so-called Global South; for now, in my view, authoritarian states hold the upper hand.
It’s hard to predict what shape global politics will take once this turbulent period settles. Can the world avoid the escalation of a broader conflict—one that, by many measures, is already underway? Is it possible to forge a new set of international norms, tailored to these shifting realities, that might at least offer a measure of global stability? At this point, clear answers remain elusive on these and many other urgent questions.
In this uncertain landscape, the outcome of the war in Ukraine—or more realistically, how its current phase ends—will be crucial. If Putin manages to achieve even some of his goals, the very notion of security and stability in Europe will be shattered. Conflict will once again become a permanent part of the continent’s reality.
