On Wednesday, October 2, 2024, former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett called for a military strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities following a recent barrage of missiles fired by Iran at Israel.
Tuesday’s strike marked Iran’s second direct attack on Israel, the first being a missile and drone attack in April. The initial strike was in retaliation for a deadly Israeli airstrike on the Iranian embassy in Damascus. The second attack was in response to the assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh during a diplomatic visit to Tehran, the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, and the killing of senior Iranian commander Abbas Nilforoushan in Beirut. Tehran says the attacks were carried out in self-defense.
Advocacy for action against Iran’s nuclear facilities includes American figures supportive of Israel. David Albright, President and Founder of the Institute for Science and International Security, who describes himself as a “nuclear expert”, has been promoting and advertising the attacks on nuclear facilities and materials operating under the safeguards agreement between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Critics have labeled his stance as reckless and malevolent, pointing to perceived manipulation and misrepresentation in his “expert opinions.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu convened a meeting with Israel’s security chiefs at the Israeli army headquarters in Tel Aviv on Wednesday, following a meeting of the Israeli security cabinet. Israeli media reports indicate that the cabinet has favored the decision to respond militarily but has not decided how.
Meanwhile, American media outlets have reported that the U.S. President Joe Biden is voicing opposition to a potential strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, aiming to prevent the regional conflict from widening further.
Consequences of Attacking Iranian Nuclear Facilities
The proposition of striking Iran’s nuclear facilities carries profound and potentially perilous consequences that warrant serious consideration.
First, a military attack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is unlikely to halt its nuclear activities in the long term. Historical precedents suggest that such actions may, paradoxically, accelerate Iran’s nuclear development. Recognizing this, previous U.S. administrations opted for diplomatic negotiations over military interventions to address concerns about Iran’s nuclear program. The pressure, sabotage, and targeted assassinations aimed at impeding Iran’s nuclear advancements have often yielded the opposite effect, providing impetus for further development. Notably, Iran expanded its capabilities from a few hundred centrifuges during President George W. Bush’s tenure to thousands, achieving 20% and 60% uranium enrichment levels—a significant leap in nuclear proficiency.
Second, any military aggression against Iran’s nuclear facilities could compel Tehran to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Such a withdrawal would have grave implications, undermining the global non-proliferation regime and sparking widespread concern among Western governments. Experts have long debated the ramifications of weakening the NPT, emphasizing that Iran’s exit could trigger a domino effect, encouraging other nations to pursue nuclear capabilities unchecked.
Third, an attack would likely prompt Iran to fundamentally reassess its nuclear doctrine. Advocates for reviewing the nuclear calculus within Iran would find their arguments strengthened, potentially shifting national policy towards a different direction than the current one. This scenario would not only fail to alleviate Western and regional security concerns but could transform them into an existential nightmare for them and their ally in the region, namely Israel. The empowerment of alternative approaches within Iran could lead to emergence of new circumstances in the Middle East, putting forward a new balance and order for the region.
Fourth, Iran has unequivocally stated that it will respond vigorously to any military action by Israel, particularly attacks targeting its infrastructure, nuclear facilities, civilians or any important location or people. Such retaliation is expected to be intense and multifaceted, potentially involving conventional and asymmetric warfare tactics. Some analysts suggest that Iran may consider countermeasures that could escalate the conflict, with the ramifications extending even beyond the region. Recent reports indicate that calls for robust retaliation have gained significant traction within Iranian strategic circles, suggesting a heightened readiness to respond.
The cumulative effect of these consequences underscores the peril inherent in attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities. Military action could precipitate an uncontrolled escalation, undermining international security and triggering a broader conflict with unforeseeable outcomes.
A measured approach that considers the complex geopolitical dynamics at play is essential to prevent exacerbating an already volatile situation.
