The current military operation launched by Israel against Iran has had a profound impact in hampering the latter’s nuclear program, reducing their ballistic missile storage, and disrupting their military command structure. However, the full-scale destruction of Iran’s nuclear program through Israel’s efforts alone remains an unlikely prospect. The lack of specific resources such as heavy bombers and special ordnance prevents Israel from penetrating the fortified subterranean Fordow enrichment site. In addition, strikes against fuel-storage centers have been avoided fearing a potential public health catastrophe.
The infrastructure capabilities of the United States, inclusive of aircraft and bunker-buster bombs, could potentially cripple the fortified Fordow site. Consequently, the conclusion of the conflict between Israel and Iran hinges heavily on decisions made by the United States, in conjunction to continuous Israeli airstrikes. Israel has been advocating for the United States to join the conflict. If the United States agrees, the ensuing strategic defeat could push Iran’s nuclear progress back by several years, and might also destabilize the regime, due to the spiraling nature of conflicts.
Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a strategic interest for the United States. In 2015, the United States sanctioned an agreement intended to block Iran’s pursuit for nuclear weapons for approximately a decade. This deal was anticipated to present a more durable and cost-effective solution than engaging in wartime actions. However, not all parties supported this approach. The agreement was abandoned in 2018, promoting Iran’s rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium.
Engaging in a war, an act the country could prevent through negotiations with less risk involved, is not perceived as being in the country’s best interest, as it was in 2015. Thus, the nation has no interest in indulging in a military intervention aimed at neutralizing Fordow. Such an operation would, in effect, be considered a miscalculated move. Should Israel decide to press on with significant damage to Fordow, the Israeli Defense Forces could achieve this by dispatching soldiers to Iran or making Fordow inaccessible.
However, these goals are challenging and expensive, which is why Israel may prefer a third party handling the operation. This outsourcing of the mission to the United States could make it a target for Iran, which would potentially retaliate by attacking civilians. Consequently, this would force the United States to respond in a back-and-forth cycle. Eventually, the only remaining targets might be Iran’s ruling class, making the US reenter the regime-changing business—a sector that hardly anyone has an appetite to returning to.
This involvement could also pose potential risks to the political trajectory of the president. Thus, it’s essential to devise a strategy that would ensure an end to the war by preventing Iran from reestablishing its military nuclear program and securing a face-saving resolution for both Israel and Iran. Achieving this is complex, but feasible. Implementation of strategic measures is crucial in retaining future peace prospects in the Middle East, and to avoid the war from affecting the United States’ ability to face other significant challenges in Europe and Asia.
For several days, the current administration has been unable to demonstrate a coherent strategy regarding the conflict. Later, a shift towards more aggressive verbiage was made, including demands for Iran’s ‘unconditional surrender’, threats against Iran’s Supreme Leader, and the collective use of ‘we’ when discussing Israel’s assaults. Nevertheless, the potential impact of the US joining Israel’s aerial efforts has not been considered. Iran has threatened to retaliate against such an act by targeting American assets, including naval fleets in the Arabian Sea and US military and diplomatic establishments along the Arab side of the Gulf.
Considering these threats, it would be wise to tread with caution regarding any military response. The potential of casualties on these ships or bases and opposition from Gulf monarchies—who themselves could become targets—could exert a significant influence on decision-making processes. As conventional response options decrease rapidly, a more direct involvement would probably propel the adversaries to resort to asymmetric actions—global terrorist attacks.
The most viable option could be to strive to conclude the conflict between Iran and Israel, while ensuring that the military gains made by Israel are preserved and Iran is left with sufficient dignity to return to negotiation talks. For this to be accomplished, it will be necessary to coordinate a multilateral effort to prevent nuclear-related materials from falling into Iran’s grasp, formulate a negotiation strategy leveraging Iran’s weakness from recent combat and secure a credible deal ending Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons capability.
It is certain that imposing direct pressure on Israel to cease aerial strikes would trigger backlash from Israel’s supporters within both of the US’s political parties, posing a risk to the rest of the political schedule. Alternatively, choosing to ignore the ongoing war would allow the conflict to continue indefinitely with unpredictable repercussions. Up until now, objectives seem to have been too ambitious—total annihilation of Iran’s nuclear program and, increasingly, regime change.
Advisably, support cannot be expected for a policy advocating for regime change. The rulers of Iran, with aid from the US’s Gulf allies, will need to be persuaded that accepting the harsh reality of significantly decreased access to enrichment facilities is a better option than enduring economic hardship, continued airstrikes, and the potential loss of control over their country.
Countries sharing common ideologies such as France, Germany, and the United Kingdom should be rallied to commit to a long-term multilateral effort to prevent Iran from acquiring new nuclear-related equipment required to restart its program and urgently create a nuclear weapon. A sharp and clear boundary must be drawn soon—before Israel’s determination for a regime change leads to yet another unending conflict and before the argument of escalation prompts Iran to switch from missile attacks to international terrorism acts, including those against American citizens.
The post Unlikely Total Annihilation of Iran’s Nuclear Program by Israel Alone appeared first on Real News Now.
About Author
