Is Iran Next?
Whatever restraints once existed on Israel’s behavior are long gone. Benjamin Netanyahu is now setting his sights on Iran — the question is to what extent President Donald Trump will back him.
Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures as he shows a slideshow during a briefing at the Hakirya military base in Tel Aviv, Israel, on May 19, 2021. (Sebastian Scheiner / AFP via Getty Images)
Pro-Israel triumphalists are celebrating a trifecta: in the course of a little over a year, Israel has felled or significantly set back its three most troublesome enemies: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria’s Bashar al-Assad. Another enemy, Iran, has been brought low by Israeli missile attacks, the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran, and a Revolutionary Guard commander in Damascus. Its Iraqi Shia militia allies have reportedly promised, at least temporarily, to cease attacks on Israel.
Israeli military sources claim that its strikes inside Iran (precipitated by an Iranian missile assault on Israel) dismantled much of its air defense systems. These security officials note that this was a key mission: to eliminate Iran’s air defenses in preparation for a future all-out assault on its nuclear program. The sources estimate it will take a year or more for Iran to repair the current damage and restore its capabilities. During this period, it will be most vulnerable, and an attack would be most optimal from an Israeli point of view. That would be the time frame within which such an assault would be expected.
In its weakened state, both Israeli leaders and Trump security advisors are urging such an attack on Iran. Former Israeli defense minister, Yoav Gallant, traveled to Washington, DC, last month. He lobbied US officials, telling them this is “a window to act against Iran.” He favored either an Israeli or preferably a joint US-Israeli operation against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
President Joe Biden does not favor such an attack. Thus it would be left to the incoming Trump administration, whose advisors are seriously considering this option. Though Trump has repeatedly expressed reluctance to commit US forces on behalf of foreign interventions, he is attuned to Israeli interests.
At the very least, he would instruct US intelligence agencies to share reports that could assist in targeting Iranian sites; he would also provide specialized munitions needed for such strikes as Biden has in Gaza and Lebanon.
For example, to destroy Iran’s most secure nuclear site, Fordow, would require a 30,000-pound GBU-57 bunker buster, which can only be flown in a B-2 bomber. It would require either a US or Israeli pilot to conduct the mission. Without this level of US participation, it would be unlikely Israel could do any significant damage to Fordow.
An example of a similar US-Israel intelligence collaboration is Israel’s assassination of Hezbollah’s former second-in-command, Imad Mughniyeh, enabled by a CIA reconnaissance team. The United States also helped pinpoint the locations of much of Hamas’s senior leadership in Gaza, enabling the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to murder them. Similarly, we may expect a green light from the Trump administration for Israel to continue eliminating key Iranian security officials, as it has Hamas and Hezbollah senior leadership.
The new reality in Middle East affairs offers Israel far more latitude in attacking its rivals. Whatever restraints existed at one time are now gone. In its defiance of the Biden administration during the Gaza genocide, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has shown that Israel will act with impunity anywhere in the region to pursue its interests. Nor does it ever face consequences or accountability.
Israel’s new strategic approach has been showcased in Gaza, where it has committed genocide despite the world’s horrified response. It has stood by and offered little resistance. Even arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court for Gallant and Netanyahu have not deterred them from slaughtering nearly 50,000 Palestinians. Devi Sridhar of Edinburgh University, writing in the Guardian, estimates the toll could be as high as 335,000, including deaths caused directly and indirectly by the fighting.
Similarly, the IDF has depopulated much of southern Lebanon and completely destroyed entire villages that once were Hezbollah strongholds. It has turned the Beirut neighborhood of Dahiyeh, where the militant group was based, into ruins. Much of its senior leadership has been killed, as they sheltered in what they believed were impregnable underground bunkers, by US-made bunker buster bombs. The success of these Israeli military operations, along with domestic political considerations, dramatically increases prospects of an intervention in Iran.
Trump, who once ordered the assassination of Iran’s supreme military commander, Qassem Soleimani, has no love lost for the Iranians. He also canceled Barack Obama’s 2015 Iran nuclear deal. The incoming president has little use for conventional diplomacy or agreements. He prefers a unilateral approach and, if necessary, the use of force. This adds to the likelihood he will green-light an Israeli operation.
Another militating factor is Netanyahu’s political vulnerability. The only thing preventing early elections and a defeat for the unpopular leader — whose approval rating is 29 percent — is continued military conflict. Earlier this month, he testified for the first time in court, where he faces three corruption charges. A conviction of any of the counts would force him to resign.
Netanyahu has shown himself to be a wily political survivor, expert at manipulating the public, his own rivals, and political allies for his own benefit. He understands quite well that a successful attack on Iran, even if it portends blowback from a counterattack, could offer him enormous political benefit at home.
Israeli Invasion of Syria as Prelude to an Iran Attack
In December, Assad was toppled by an Islamic militant group, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). In its earlier iteration as Al-Nusra, it was an Israeli proxy in the Syrian Golan, where it faced off against Hezbollah forces. After HTS assumed control this month, the IDF invaded Syria and occupied territory six miles into what had been a 1974 armistice line between the two countries. Netanyahu promptly abrogated the treaty agreement and announced Israel would occupy Syrian territory indefinitely as a “defensive barrier” on its northern frontier.
A Reuters report based on Syrian eyewitnesses declared IDF commandos were operating sixteen miles from Damascus, in the city’s suburbs. Though the IDF denied the story, it did acknowledge its forces were active outside the new Israeli buffer zone: “The IDF has deployed troops in the buffer zone and in a number of areas that are necessary to defend.” In other words, it is not restricting itself to activity in the occupied territory. It will conduct operations in any Syrian territory it deems critical to its interests.
Though HTS may have toppled Assad and become the de facto power brokers inside the country, the two real powers are Israel and Turkey. Both have broader geopolitical ambitions. Turkey seeks to defeat Kurdish forces allied with the United States in northeastern Syria. It, too, has occupied a buffer zone inside northern Syria, as Israel has in the south.
The United States currently has 2,000 troops supporting its Kurdish allies. Will Donald Trump continue this operation? During his first term, he toyed with withdrawing our forces from Syria. But ultimately he was dissuaded by his generals, who persuaded him that Syria would fall into chaos and ISIS would return if he did.
Given that Trump has nominated key military and intelligence figures who are far more in tune with his isolationist views on US foreign entanglements, he may leave the Kurds, our allies for the past fifteen years, to their own devices. Turkey will likely then launch a major offensive, which could decimate them. That would leave an opening for ISIS to resume terrorist activity in eastern Syria. In Trump’s first term, he boasted he had defeated ISIS. He may enable their reemergence.
Iran Is Next
Once Israel finds its Syrian position stable, it would be in a position to turn to Iran. An Israeli attack is almost a foregone conclusion. The question is not if, but when.
When Trump enters the White House, he will be confronted with whether to approve an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear, military, and intelligence infrastructure. Trump may resist direct US involvement. He is hesitant about any operation that involves a major military commitment. But he would no doubt provide critical intelligence to the Israelis.
A massive strike against Iranian targets could ignite a regional war. Even with members of Iran’s Axis of Resistance sidelined, there are others (Iraqi Shia and Houthi allies) who have the capability of inflicting damage on US and Israeli forces. It could be the first such widespread conflict since 1973.
Thus far, Iran has restrained its nuclear program. Its uranium enrichment has not surpassed 60 percent. It has not produced a missile delivery system. This process could take a year or more. It has chosen not to progress beyond these limits, since it doesn’t want to give its enemies grounds for such a strike.
This week, Axios reported that a US national security advisor presented a plan to President Biden to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities should it take steps like those mentioned above. This makes the nuclear option a very dangerous one for Iran.
Though a US-Israel attack would cause serious damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, experts have judged it will not destroy its capabilities. Iran going nuclear would considerably alter the balance of power in the region. Instead of Israel being the lone nuclear power, Iran would join this select club. The former would no longer have unfettered power and influence. As with North Korea, Iran would possess a guarantee of survival should enemies launch an all-out attack whose goal is annihilation or regime change.
During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union maintained a policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD), which constrained each party from using their weapons. The Middle East is far less stable. Some, like Israel, are ruled by zealots engaged in genocide and harboring visions of an apocalyptic war against Islam. The likelihood of nuclear war feels considerably higher than during the Cold War.
Since October 7, 2023, Israel has transformed the region into a considerably more dangerous place. The new Trump administration may have neither the capability nor the will to prevent a conflict of catastrophic proportions.