"History won't end after a strike on Iran," says a foreign diplomat. His brief statement effectively summarizes numerous discussions and complex dilemmas faced by many people in multiple countries right now. On one hand, action against Iran isn't a question of if, simply because no other option remains. On the other hand, we're not talking about one bombing run, and we're done, as the military challenge is substantial with implications and effects far beyond a localized confrontation between Israel and Iran.
Let's start with the conclusion: Very little time remains to address Iran's nuclear program. The Islamic Republic is placing its underground nuclear infrastructure so deep that even the American bunker-busting bomb will eventually be unable to penetrate it. "It will be so deep that conventional weapons won't be able to do the job," in the diplomat's words.
Meanwhile, the latest report from the International Atomic Energy Agency determined that, "if Iran decides to produce weapons-grade uranium (90% enrichment) instead of 60% (currently), it could do so quickly... (and reach) enough stockpile to produce four to five nuclear weapons within about one month," as summarized by the Institute for Science and International Security based on the IAEA findings.
As is widely known, Iran's nuclear infrastructure is scattered throughout the vast country. This means "hit and run" scenarios involving a small number of aircraft, like those executed by the Israeli Air Force in Iraq in 1981 or Syria in 2007, are irrelevant. Against multiple sites, some of which are underground, many more aircraft would be needed, possibly in multiple waves of attacks.
How many? Zohar Palti, who has filled numerous key security positions, claimed in Nadav Perry's podcast that the United States is capable of neutralizing Iran's nuclear program in eight hours, but an American source I spoke with believes this estimate is too optimistic. According to the source, the question is how much damage one wants to inflict on the Iranian project. Secondly, there are likely softening and preparation operations needed before the eight hours of striking the system itself.
Therefore, according to this source, the Americans need two days to eliminate Iran's nuclear program. Either way, even if eight hours is sufficient for the Americans, the Israeli Air Force, lacking the bombs they possess, would need much more time.
Furthermore, a strike on Iran wouldn't begin and end with Israeli Air Force sorties, but would require such extensive regional preparations that they couldn't be concealed. This means Israel could send and return aircraft alone and by surprise, but both Israeli and American officials doubt the feasibility of such a scenario.
First, because if Israel wanted to surprise, the American detection and warning system would quickly discover Israeli activity. Indeed, if we don't update CENTCOM in advance, there could even be friction between our aircraft and their American counterparts. Second, even if the Americans don't participate in the actual strike, it would be very advantageous for Israel to receive real-time defensive assistance from President Donald Trump.
Reports in American media claimed that during Israel's operation in Iran last fall, American forces stood ready to rescue our pilots if, God forbid, any were shot down over Iranian skies. Additionally, Iran could respond in real time by firing missiles at Israel, at American bases in the region, or at US allies. And of course, Iran might respond later, and indeed has threatened to do so if the worst happens from its perspective – the destruction of its nuclear project.
Although Israel significantly damaged Iran's missile array, the ayatollahs still have quite a few left. They aren't resting on their laurels either, and according to international media reports, a Chinese ship carrying fuel used for cruise missiles recently docked in Iran. Additionally, the Houthis are fully engaged, as are militias in Iraq and Hezbollah. Yes, the organization has suffered a severe blow, but it still retains numerous capabilities.
Or take Azerbaijan, an Israeli ally and bitter enemy of the ayatollahs. Baku, which has already suffered terrorist attacks from Iran, is in its crosshairs if Israel acts. It's worth remembering that even between Iran and Pakistan, rounds of exchanges of fire and bombings occurred, indirectly related to the rivalry with Israel.
In other words, action in Iran could ignite areas much more extensive than a missile war between Tel Aviv and Tehran. To minimize the damage from such a development, a regional defensive deployment is needed, more extensive than the one in which the international coalition prepared to thwart previous Iranian attacks on Israel. On those two occasions, only Israel was bombed. The coalition's defense greatly minimized Iran's impact.
This time, even if Israel strikes alone, Iran promises to retaliate throughout the region. Therefore, a regional defensive setup is required, led by the US of course. Its preparation takes weeks, and that can't be hidden either. So in any case and scenario, advance coordination with the Americans seems necessary.
Israel would like to see American partnership in the attack, not just in defense. But the question is how interested President Trump is. Due to fears of a regional war, former presidents Obama and Biden didn't want Israel to bomb Iran. Trump is less risk-averse than those two, but he's also not eager for battle.
At the opening of his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House a month ago, I asked the president, "Now that Iran is at its weakest, isn't it time to take military action against its nuclear program?" Trump disputed the premise of the question. "You say Iran is weak, but it's very strong. Biden strengthened it by transferring billions to them. We'll impose sanctions on it," the president replied. Indeed, at this stage, Trump is again trying "maximum pressure" through economic sanctions on Iran and its officials. Military action isn't in his cards right now, apparently. At the same time, he's asking Russia to mediate between him and Iran to reach a new nuclear deal. So currently, his focus is diplomatic, not military.
The issue is that there's no chance sanctions or a renewed agreement will cause the ayatollahs to stop their nuclear program. If they refused Biden's concessions, they certainly won't bridge the gap with Trump's tougher demands. As for sanctions, history teaches that only rarely have they caused countries to retreat from what they saw as serving their national security. Iran itself has been under economic and other sanctions for 40 years. This hasn't really affected it. There's no reason to think that now, when they're on the threshold of a bomb, something will change.
It's possible that before turning to the military option – or authorizing Israel to do so – Trump wants to exhaust diplomatic tools. Stopping wars around the world was one of his campaign promises. In other words, he'll give sanctions and negotiations a few months. When these fail, he'll make decisions.
This is the assessment of Dan Shapiro, who held a senior position in the Pentagon during the Biden administration and was previously US Ambassador to Israel. According to Shapiro, the preparations themselves (for military action) will signal to Iran that we're serious. There must be a credible military threat on the table. The moment of truth (whether to act or not) will come this fall. Shapiro made those comments at an Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) conference.
He added that Iran is in its weakest position as a result of the severe damage to its air defense system last fall by Israel. In his assessment, the US has significantly better capabilities than Israel, but Israel can cause significant damage to Iran's nuclear infrastructure. In any case, it will need US assistance, as happened in Israel's attack on Iran in October.
Among professionals, opinions are divided on whether Iranian skies are completely exposed or whether Iran retains significant defensive capabilities. Here, too, we must assume Iran isn't wasting time and is using every day to place new radars and anti-aircraft missile batteries.
What, then, will be the practical outcome of all these discussions? Very senior officials in Israel repeatedly say at every opportunity that they "aren't taking their eyes off the ball," meaning they're aware of the opportunities, risks, and urgency.
Senator Lindsey Graham said Tuesday, in response to reports that Russia would mediate a nuclear deal between Iran and the US, that "there is zero chance there will be a nuclear agreement. The Nazi ayatollahs want to destroy Israel. President Trump needs to give Israel the tools to destroy Iran's nuclear program." The day before, Prime Minister Netanyahu declared in the Knesset that "there are things better left unspoken, better done quietly." He is, of course, right, provided that this time they finally get done.
