Assessing Israel’s Capability To Target Iran’s Nuclear Program In A Post-Assad Context
By Altaf Moti
The geopolitical landscape of the Middle East has long been characterized by tension, conflict, and a complex web of alliances. At the heart of this turmoil lies the contentious relationship between Israel and Iran, particularly regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Israel perceives a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, prompting discussions about military action to neutralize this perceived danger. The intention of Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities is assessed alongside its capability to do so independently or with U.S. assistance, especially in light of developments during Donald Trump’s presidency and the recent fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.
The Context of Israeli-Iranian Relations
Israel and Iran have been adversaries since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, which transformed Iran into a theocratic state hostile to Israel. Over the years, this animosity has been fueled by various factors, including Iran’s support for militant groups, its anti-Israel rhetoric, and its pursuit of nuclear technology. The latter has become a focal point of concern for Israeli leaders, who argue that a nuclear-capable Iran would threaten Israel directly.
In recent years, Iran has made significant advancements in its nuclear program, prompting Israel to take a more aggressive stance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been particularly vocal about the need to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He has repeatedly stated that “Israel will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power,” emphasizing that military action may be necessary if diplomatic efforts fail.
The Trump Administration’s Approach to Iran
The approach taken by President Donald Trump regarding Iran marked a significant departure from previous administrations. In May 2018, Trump withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a multilateral agreement aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This decision was rooted in Trump’s belief that the deal was fundamentally flawed and allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium while funding militant activities across the region.
Following the withdrawal, Trump initiated a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, reinstating sanctions that had been lifted under the JCPOA. This strategy aimed to cripple Iran’s economy and force it back to the negotiating table. However, critics argue that this approach only heightened tensions and led to increased Iranian aggression in both its nuclear program and regional activities.
As tensions escalated, Trump’s administration began considering military options against Iran. Reports indicated that advisers were exploring airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities as a serious option amidst concerns that economic pressure alone would not suffice to contain Tehran’s ambitions. Trump’s rhetoric during this period suggested a willingness to consider military action if deemed necessary.
Military Capability: Can Israel Act Alone?
While Israel possesses one of the most advanced militaries in the world, its ability to independently dismantle Iran’s extensive nuclear infrastructure is subject to debate. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have demonstrated their capability through targeted strikes against Iranian assets in Syria and other locations. For instance, Israeli airstrikes have successfully targeted weapons shipments intended for Hezbollah and have reportedly struck Iranian military facilities in Syria.
However, experts argue that Iran’s nuclear program is deeply entrenched and dispersed across multiple sites, many of which are fortified or underground. Key facilities such as Natanz and Fordow are designed to withstand airstrikes, making it challenging for Israel to achieve a comprehensive strike without significant intelligence and military support. Moreover, Israel would need to conduct multiple strikes across various locations to effectively disrupt Iran’s capabilities.
The Role of U.S. Support
The United States plays a critical role in any potential Israeli military operation against Iran. Historically, U.S. administrations have been cautious about endorsing military strikes due to the potential for escalating regional conflict. Under Trump’s administration, however, there was an evident shift towards considering military options more seriously than under previous administrations.
Trump’s willingness to explore airstrikes as part of his strategy against Iran indicated a readiness to support Israeli actions more robustly if necessary. This marked a significant change from Biden’s approach which emphasized diplomatic engagement with Tehran following Trump’s exit from the JCPOA.
U.S. military assets are crucial for addressing deeper underground facilities that Israel cannot reach alone. Joint exercises and intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Israel enhance Israel’s operational capabilities significantly. Should Israel decide to launch a strike against Iranian facilities under Trump’s administration, U.S. support would likely be essential for ensuring mission success and mitigating retaliatory actions from Iran.
Regional Dynamics: The Impact of Syria
The recent fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has dramatically altered the strategic landscape for both Israel and Iran. With Assad’s government effectively collapsed as armed rebels captured Damascus on December 8, 2024, there is now uncertainty regarding Iranian influence in Syria. The absence of Assad may lead to a power vacuum that could complicate Iranian operations previously facilitated by his regime.
While Assad’s fall is seen as a setback for both Russia and Iran in their efforts to maintain influence in Syria, it raises concerns about how this shift might affect Iranian military presence near Israeli territory. Without Assad’s regime as a stabilizing force allied with Tehran, there is potential for increased instability within Syria itself—possibly allowing for greater Iranian maneuverability or even direct confrontation with Israeli forces if new factions emerge seeking alliances with Tehran.
The Risks of Military Action
While military action may seem like a viable option for Israel under Trump’s administration, it carries significant risks. A strike on Iranian nuclear facilities could provoke a severe retaliatory response from Tehran, potentially leading to a broader regional conflict involving proxy groups like Hezbollah or even direct confrontation with Iranian forces. The aftermath of such an attack could destabilize neighboring countries and lead to civilian casualties, further complicating an already volatile situation.
Moreover, international reactions must be considered. A unilateral Israeli strike without U.S. backing could strain relations with key allies and undermine diplomatic efforts aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear program through negotiations rather than military means.
In conclusion, while Israel is committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and has demonstrated its willingness to act militarily when necessary—particularly during Trump’s presidency—it faces limitations regarding its ability to independently dismantle Iran’s extensive nuclear program. The involvement of the United States remains crucial for any comprehensive strategy against Iranian nuclear capabilities.
Altaf Moti
Altaf Moti writes on diverse topics such as politics, economics, and society.