I read numerous op-eds and analyses lately suggesting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might execute a plan to initiate an independent military attack on Iranian atomic facilities to ease domestic troubles and stress. Conversely, he could go for an overseas remedy to Israeli domestic troubles.
Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
The available data doesn't discount this possibility on paper. Nonetheless, in practice, consecutive Israeli administrations did not carry out significant decisions such as executing a military attack on Iran with all the complications and potential outcomes that some commentators hastily discuss.
Admittedly, there are internal factors that back up the likelihood of a Netanyahu administration adopting such a resolution. Nonetheless, ultimately, there are regional factors that must be factored in when discussing the notion. The Middle East region is undergoing swift geopolitical transformations, whether they are related to new agreements, novel methods of resolving crises and ending conflicts, or reopening communication lines between warring factions. Thus, it is illogical to spark a war during a period when it is vague who is pro or against the idea, let alone that the global strategic atmosphere is highly unstable, as Israel's primary conventional comrade, the US, is submerged in a whirlpool of escalating global difficulties and challenges, let alone this issue that is not akin to any other problem, but rather one of the most perilous files of US foreign policy.
American news outlets report on internal deliberations concerning a fresh method of tackling the predicament of the Iranian nuclear issue, employing the "freeze for freeze" tactic. It is established on a suggestion for a provisional accord that includes the relaxation of sanctions imposed on Iran in exchange for freezing some of the actions of the Iranian nuclear program. This measure seeks to remedy the absence of a suitable formula to revive the 2015 nuclear deal.
The Iranian side has knowledge of the American proposal and is against the idea of halting uranium enrichment at a purity level higher than 60%, regardless of the incentives, except if it is within the framework of a comprehensive agreement.
One of the dilemmas is that the Biden administration is fully convinced that diplomacy is the most effective way to contain the Iranian nuclear threat while ensuring that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons. The Iranian and Israeli sides are moving between these two points, as the former feels relatively reassured and maneuvers nuclear and strategic issues, as long as the military option is put aside, while the latter is under pressure from internal crises and also has some concerns about the strategic changes taking place regionally, fearing the opportunity to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat may be lost.
An op-ed in The Times discusses the notion of Israel accepting a nuclear Iran. The author views a one-sided military attack on Iran as a test for the US, as it would not only be hazardous but also ambiguous in terms of its impact and expected outcomes. The main reason is that the Biden administration is unlikely to take the risk of going to war with Iran to defend its ally Israel.
According to several experts, including from Israel, Iran's nuclear knowledge diminishes the efficacy of any military attack on nuclear facilities. Iranian nuclear capabilities are now an undeniable reality. The US strategy to halt Iran's rush to develop a nuclear weapon is to bridge the knowledge gap, recognizing that the threat now lies in transforming knowledge into weapons capabilities. Therefore, the contest between "military" and "diplomatic" efforts is limited to buying time and delaying this transformation process, rather than completely aborting or eliminating it.
In the current strategic circumstances, it is crucial to differentiate between Iran armed with nuclear weapons and Iran possessing nuclear knowledge. The regional and international scene does not offer any opportunity to any party, be it Israel or others, to develop a precise hypothetical scenario for the consequences of any preemptive strike.
The Iranian regime has undergone significant changes since the Ukraine war and the recent internal protests. While Iranian leaders may have exercised caution in the past, they have become more strategically impulsive due to changes in both the regional and global conditions and within the Iranian regime itself.
This complicates any discussion about the idea of a preemptive strike. Nonetheless, the concept of "living with" a nuclear Iran remains a subject of equal concern and apprehension, as Iran is distinct from other countries and regimes in its attitude toward Israel or other neighbors in the Gulf and the Arab region. As long as Tehran continues its regional project, it is difficult to argue that a nuclear Iran will be less of a source of worry and disruption.
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
