The debate about the military effectiveness of the U.S. airstrikes against Iran misses a more profound point: Brilliant battlefield success by itself will not ensure a nuclear-free Iran.

The U.S. attacks capped a year-plus Israeli campaign that utterly exposed Iran’s “axis of resistance” as a paper tiger. My own guess is that the strikes were highly effective. Uranium enrichment facilities rely on elaborate machinery, steady power supply and structurally sturdy environments. All that is likely to have been compromised by the 14 bunker-buster bombs that hit their targets with precision. But even assuming the damage was severe, most experts I have spoken to estimate that the strikes would have set back Iran’s nuclear program by one to two years. By contrast, the Iran nuclear deal finalized in 2015 placed Iran’s nuclear program in check for 10 to 15 years.

The Israeli attacks might actually have done more to delay Iran’s nuclear program than the bunker-buster bombs. In less than two weeks, Israel killed at least 14 of Iran’s top nuclear scientists, even more high-ranking military officials, and destroyed around half of all its missile launchers, according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Iran’s air defenses are close to neutralized, which means it is now vulnerable to an Israeli or American strike at any time.

But as the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Rafael Mariano Grossi, pointed out, Iran has the know-how to rebuild. It appears to have moved large quantities of enriched uranium that, if intact, could easily be weaponized. That uranium cannot be bombed without potentially causing massive casualties.

Which means that the only way to ensure that Iran will not be a nuclear weapons state would be through negotiations and inspections — in other words, by signing another nuclear deal. Sometimes, the pen really is mightier than the sword.

For all his bluster about the American strikes, President Donald Trump appears to understand this, and he is now calling for diplomacy. He is in a pivotal position; he has the political capital in America and Israel to make a deal. Iran can and should be asked to do more than was asked by the Obama administration in 2015. The Islamic Republic is in a much weaker position than it was then, in fact than it has been in decades. The demands should include real curbs on a nuclear program that provides only about 2% of Iran’s electricity, but also curbs on supporting militias in the Middle East that promote violence and instability. Iranians would benefit greatly if their government had to focus on bolstering its own people rather than its revolutionary credentials.

The crucial issue will be uranium enrichment. Iran, based on the Non-Proliferation Treaty, says it has a right to enrichment for peaceful purposes. Israel wants them to have no enrichment capacity whatsoever. The Trump administration had initially proposed a regional consortium that could enrich uranium while being monitored and provide Iranians with uranium that is too low-grade to be used for weapons. But once Trump saw the success of Israel’s attacks on Iran, he decided to harden his position. He should consider going back to his previous stance. Most experts I consulted say that the regional consortium would be workable and safe.

Diplomacy that ended with a deal would have another major advantage. Whatever one speculates about Iran’s future intentions, it did not have a weaponized nuclear program. U.S. intelligence has been clear on this time and again, and I have seen no contrary evidence. So, the United States launched an unprovoked attack against a sovereign state, without United Nations or even congressional sanction. That kind of unilateral military action should not be undertaken lightly. It’s easy to cheer when Washington does it, but how will we feel when China does it? How do we feel about Russia doing just that in Ukraine?

The rules-based international order is a mouthful, a strange abstraction that most people never think about. But we are living through the longest period of peace and stability in modern history among the world’s major countries. That peace is what has allowed for the building of a global economy, of trade and travel, and of a world in which nationalistic rivalries do not end up in a nuclear war.

Military action against Iran, even though it was unprovoked and unilateral, could be justified if it leads to a strengthening of nuclear nonproliferation — a warning to those who might cross the line. But that requires a political settlement of the issue in a way that is stable and acceptable to both sides, or else we merely have a ceasefire.

The unilateral U.S. military attacks could fuel the emerging chaos of international life, in which other powerful states decide to break the rules, always for what they believe are good and urgent reasons. They will all justify their actions by saying what that soldier in Vietnam said, standing amid smoldering ruins, that to save the village, he had to destroy it.

Email: fareed.zakaria.gps@turner.com.