Israel’s remarkable early success in its campaign against Iran has clearly won over President Trump, who has now taken to using the term “we” when discussing the operation. This has increased the debate over whether — and to what extent — the U.S. should join the effort.
In under a week, Israel has achieved complete air supremacy, allowing its pilots to hit targets in Iran without fear of harassment. Though the conflict has taken a toll (Iran’s indiscriminate ballistic missile attacks have killed dozens of Israelis and injured hundreds more), the Iranian counterstrikes have not destroyed any significant strategic targets. Israel, meanwhile, has degraded Iran’s ballistic missile production, its stockpiles of missiles, and its rocket launchers; it has damaged or destroyed its airbases and planes; it has struck Iran’s major oil refineries; and it has taken out dozens of top Iranian military leaders. Israel’s opening strike against Iran killed the man who was effectively the chief of staff of the Iranian military, Major General Ali Shadmani; on Monday, they killed his replacement, Major General Gholam Ali Rashid.
In terms of the top goal of the war effort, Israelis have done significant damage to Natanz, Iran’s main nuclear facility, as well as damaging several other nuclear sites and laboratories and killing many of its top nuclear scientists. But looming out there is Fordow, the deeply fortified nuclear-enrichment facility built into the side of a mountain. If Fordow is not destroyed, or at least rendered inoperable by destruction of the infrastructure necessary to operate it, Iran could move whatever stockpiles of uranium it still has and race to enrich it at the facility — an unacceptable conclusion to the current conflict. It’s possible that Israel has some creative way of destroying the facility or damaging it to a degree that puts it out of commission for the short term. The Hezbollah pager operation illustrated its ingenuity. But the most straightforward way to take out the facility is with bunker-buster bombs — of the 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) variety that are possessed only by the U.S. and can be delivered only by American bombers such as the B-2.
While we don’t know where he will ultimately land on the question, Trump is certainly pursuing an “invest in success” approach toward the conflict, as he’s increasingly vocal about his partnership with Israel in the current campaign. Trump has made clear, for many years, that Iran could never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. He has reiterated that he gave Iran 60 days to strike a deal to abandon their enrichment activities, and they refused. Now, he says, the only solution is “unconditional surrender.” The suggestion is that Iran can either agree to dismantle its nuclear program, or the program will be destroyed. He even warned that we know where to find Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei but he doesn’t want to take him out yet.
Thus far, Trump has helped defend Israel against Iranian missiles and provided weapons to them but has stopped short of any American involvement in offensive operations. He has sent the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier and the rest of its strike group to join the USS Carl Vinson in the Middle East along with U.S. Air Force tankers and tactical fighter jets. Whether this demonstrates preparation for a U.S. strike, or a way of twisting the screws on the Iranian regime to agree to full dismantlement, remains unclear.
Critics of intervention argue that Iran was nowhere close to a nuclear weapon and liken the current situation to the overstated claims of WMDs in Iraq. In this case, however, there is no debate that Iran has a vast nuclear program and a sophisticated ballistic missile program. The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency determined that Iran had been enriching uranium well beyond the level of civilian use, and closer to military grade. It’s a good indication that the intelligence was alarming that even European nations who have been highly critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza have been supportive here. French President Emmanuel Macron said that Iran was at a “critical point” in obtaining a nuclear weapon. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said, “This is the dirty work Israel is doing for all of us.”
A nuclear Iran is most obviously an existential threat to Israel (just imagine if some of the ballistic missiles that snuck through Israeli anti-missile defenses were armed with nuclear warheads). But it is wrong to suggest, as those in the noninterventionist camp have, that whether or not Iran goes nuclear is of no consequence to the U.S.
For decades, Iran has been the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and its leaders have regularly vowed “Death to America.” This is the regime that took Americans hostage and helped support groups that killed hundreds of U.S. service members throughout the Middle East and that has plotted to assassinate Trump.
Skeptics have argued that, even if Iran obtained a nuclear weapon, it wouldn’t have the capacity — or the will — to launch one at the U.S. But this is missing the point. Once Iran goes nuclear, it becomes much more difficult to take any actions against it, meaning that it would have carte blanche to ramp up its support for terrorism and take other destabilizing actions throughout the globe even if it never actually uses the weapon.
Critics of any action against a U.S. strike on Iran argue that it would be tantamount to another “regime change” war that would bog down Americans in the Middle East for decades, leading to thousands of dead U.S. troops and trillions of dollars in expenditures — or even trigger World War III. But there is no reason for that to be the case.
Obviously, the U.S. should not be contemplating a full-scale invasion and occupation of Iran akin to Iraq or Afghanistan. As for world war, the Russians, a key partner of the Iranians, have shown no appetite to get involved. It is true that the regime, weakened by Israeli hammer blows, eventually could fall. This would presumably be a strategic boon for the West in taking off the map an inveterate, dangerous enemy that has destabilized the region for decades. But no one could know with certainty what would come next, and chaos and civil war might ensue.
That said, if Israel continues at the current pace, it not only will have established complete control of the skies but will have neutralized the Iranian ballistic missile threat — the most obvious means for Iran to retaliate against U.S. troops in the region. At that point, the risk calculus of a U.S. bombing run to take out Fordow and end the Iranian nuclear threat for a significant period of time leans heavily on the side of taking action.
Even assuming that Trump has authority under Article II and existing law because of Iran’s record and the threat a nuclear Iran would pose, he should seek congressional approval for such a potential action, and the House and Senate should give it to him posthaste. An authorization wouldn’t force his hand but would certainly give the ayatollahs something else to think about.
Israel may be on the cusp of ending an Iranian nuclear threat that has bedeviled it and the West for decades now. It is imperative to finish the job.