Trump’s Hiroshima Comparison Sparks Outrage as He Claims Credit for Ending Israel-Iran Conflict
In a series of controversial remarks at the NATO Summit on Wednesday, former U.S. President Donald Trump claimed that American airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities were pivotal in ending the 12-day war between Israel and Iran — a conflict that inflicted significant civilian and infrastructural damage on both sides.
Trump, never one to shy away from dramatic comparisons, likened last week’s U.S. strikes to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, suggesting that the American intervention was similarly decisive.
“I don’t want to use the example of Hiroshima, I don’t want to use the example of Nagasaki,” he said, before proceeding to do exactly that. “But it is essentially the same thing — that thing ended that war, this thing ended this war.”
The remarks drew immediate criticism from international observers and human rights advocates, who condemned the comparison as historically tone-deaf and diplomatically inflammatory.
Trump’s Triumph Narrative and Dubious Claims
Speaking to reporters in The Hague, Trump claimed that the joint U.S.-Israel military action forced Tehran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. “They just went through hell,” he said. “I don’t think they’ll ever do it again. They tried to enrich — by the way, it’s hard to enrich — and they couldn’t come up with it despite spending trillions.”
Trump also claimed that relations between Washington and Tehran were now “very good,” despite Iran having launched a ballistic missile attack on a U.S. base in Qatar just days earlier — an act that directly preceded the ceasefire.
U.S. intelligence agencies have yet to corroborate Trump’s assertion that Iran’s nuclear infrastructure has been comprehensively destroyed. However, Trump insisted that the strikes had a Hiroshima-like finality in bringing the conflict to an end.
A Ceasefire Amid Accusations and Damage
The 12-day war erupted when Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, targeting key Iranian nuclear sites and high-ranking military officials. Iran responded with Operation True Promise 3, launching missile barrages into Israeli territory, including Tel Aviv.
On Saturday, the U.S. escalated the conflict by deploying ‘bunker buster’ bombs to strike Iranian nuclear sites at Fordow, Isfahan, and Natanz. In retaliation, Iran fired missiles at the Al-Udeid U.S. Air Base in Qatar on Monday, just hours before the ceasefire was announced.
The ceasefire, reportedly brokered by Trump, initially appeared fragile. Both Tehran and Tel Aviv accused each other of early violations. Nevertheless, the ceasefire has held since Trump’s public declarations on Tuesday.
Post-War Recovery and Political Ripples
In the wake of the ceasefire, both countries are slowly returning to a semblance of normalcy. Iran has begun restoring internet access after a blackout triggered by Israeli attacks, while Israel has reopened its airspace and resumed operations at Ben-Gurion Airport.
Iran, however, is not retreating quietly. On Wednesday, the Iranian Parliament passed legislation mandating a halt to cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), unless explicitly approved by the Supreme National Security Council.
This signals Tehran’s deepening distrust of international oversight following the airstrikes.
Iranian airspace is expected to remain closed until Thursday afternoon, while the country evaluates the security of its skies.
Netanyahu Declares Strategic Victory
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailed the outcome as a dual triumph. “We have eliminated two existential threats: nuclear annihilation and a barrage of 20,000 ballistic missiles,” he declared.
However, experts caution that such declarations may be premature. While the immediate hostilities have ceased, long-term strategic tensions — particularly over Iran’s nuclear program — remain unresolved.
Meanwhile, Trump’s attempt to draw a historical parallel with Hiroshima not only trivializes one of the most devastating events in human history but also dangerously simplifies the complex geopolitical dynamics of the Middle East.
While the cessation of violence is welcome, attributing peace to overwhelming force — and comparing it to nuclear obliteration — raises uncomfortable questions about the future of U.S. diplomacy under Trump’s influence.
Moreover, the lack of independent verification regarding the alleged destruction of Iranian nuclear capabilities leaves room for skepticism.
As Tehran tightens its grip on domestic policy and distances itself from international atomic watchdogs, the region may be entering a more opaque and unstable phase.
The war may have stopped, but the story is far from over.
