Trump's Iran Decision

While Israel alone made the decision to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, President Trump has made it clear that he is considering all options on the table—including joining Israel in this conflict. This could merely be saber rattling aimed to get Iran to make significant concessions on the nuclear issue, but I thought it would be useful to discuss the considerations that the Administration should take into account.

I will start with a few observations about the Israeli attack on Iran. First, it is noteworthy that even countries that are sharply critical of Israel’s handling of the war in Gaza are either outright supportive of Israel’s attack on Iran or are only muted in expressions of concern. This reflects the fact that most nations in the region and in Europe view Iran as a source of great instability and misbehavior. Iran and/or its proxies have attacked worldwide shipping in the Red Sea, have conducted terrorist operations in Europe and the Middle East, and have provided material support to the Russian war effort in Ukraine. As a result, Iran has very few friends. It is not surprising that the German Chancellor applauded Israel for doing the world’s “dirty work”, saying “I can only say I have the greatest respect for the fact that the Israeli army and the Israeli government had the courage to do this.”

There is also growing concern that if Iran were to become a nuclear power, other nations in the region—most notably Saudi Arabia—would feel compelled to develop a nuclear deterrent as well.

Second, the Israel attacks have been very successful. Two of the three uranium enrichment plants have been seriously damaged, The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) told the U.N. Security Council that Israel destroyed the electricity infrastructure (an electrical sub-station, the main electric power supply building, emergency power supply and back-up generators) at the Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz. "Our assessment is that with this sudden loss of external power, in great probability the centrifuges have been severely damaged if not destroyed altogether," the head of the IAEA told the BBC. In addition, the IAEA assesses that the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant at Natanz has also been destroyed.

Only one enrichment facility (at least known to the IAEA) remains undamaged—the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which is buried deep in a mountain and therefore not susceptible to Israel’s military capability.

Other nuclear-related facilities have also been destroyed and it appears that five key Iranian nuclear scientists have been killed.

The Israeli strike also killed the top leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iran has two military forces—a regular Army and the IRGC. It appears that Israel has focused its attacks on the IRGC, which is closely linked to and controlled by the clerical leadership. It may be that Israel is not attacking the leadership of the regular forces with the hope they may take advantage of the war to seize power from the clerics.

So with this huge success, why would the U.S. even contemplate getting involved? Simply put, Iran’s uranium enrichment capabilities will survive unless the U.S joins the war. As I noted above, the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which is buried deep in a mountain, remains undamaged. Israel does not have the capability to attack this facility—but the U.S. might.

The challenge is to destroying the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant is that the weapon must penetrate deep into the mountain. Only the U.S. has a weapon—the 30,000-pound precision-guided GBU-57 (the “bunker buster” or Massive Ordinance Penetrator)—that can accomplish this mission. And it is the only country with an aircraft that can deliver this massive weapon—the stealthy B-2 bomber. The Washington Post has a useful “explainer” about this weapon.

So the reason why the U.S. is considering this fight is that it is the only military capable of finishing the job of destroying Iran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities.

So is this a no-brainer? Isn’t it obvious that the U.S. should join the fight. Not necessarily.

While Israel has deeply degraded Iran’s military capabilities, as well as those of its proxies, they are still formidable. A US attack on Iran could cause a devastating attack on U.S. interests in the region, including the mining of the Strait of Hormuz, which would cut off all oil traffic from the region and prevent U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf from leaving the Gulf.. Its Houthi proxies would likely resume attacks on Red Sea shipping. And the U.S. military bases in the region would likely be subject to missile attack. The Iranian military has missile bases within easy striking range of Bahrain, Qatar and United Arab Emirates. Iran and its proxies might also use drones to attack our military bases and other targets in the region. It is for this reason that many of our allies in the region have urged the parties to de-escalate the conflict.

There is another reason to exercise caution. The GBU-57 has never been used before and it might not be successful in destroying the enrichment facility. There may also be other facilities that we don’t know about. The result may be the worst possible—Iran emerges from the war with enrichment capability and a great incentive to build nuclear weapons.

Our intervention might also have adverse consequences in the long term. As we learned the hard way in Libya and Iraq, even an easy military victory have have severe collateral consequences that are not in our interest. In Iraq, we defeated Hussein, and the consequences to the region were still very bad—most notably that we were bogged down by a years-long insurgency fight, the rise of ISIS, and a civil war in Syria that had worldwide consequences (including massive migration to Europe). In Libya, we were successful in removing the regime only to have a civil war that continues more than a decade later. Perhaps the war will lead to the fall of the clerics, but we can’t be sure that this will necessarily advance our interests.

To me this is a close call. It may well be that the Israeli attack on Iran has already caused Iran to decide to make nuclear weapons. If so, the failure to destroy the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant could have have devastating consequences. In the end, however, I think that we still have time to attempt a diplomatic solution. Israel has devastated Iran’s air defense systems and it will take time for Iran to build them back. We therefore have the luxury of attempting a diplomatic solution with the military option remaining available if diplomacy fails. The threat of such action—as well as continued Israeli attacks—might well be the leverage we need to get a solution that ensures a nuclear-free Iran. I also think our intervention will cause a regional war with devastating effects on the world economy that could lead to collateral consequences that we can’t predict.

Foregoing military action now might also make regime change more possible. The hardline forces in Iran have been hit hard by Israel and this creates the possibility of political change. This change will take time, and I doubt that alternative voices within the Iranian elite would attempt change during a war with the U.S.