When is it acceptable to strike another country? When you believe an attack by that country is imminent. At the same time, you must have exhausted all diplomatic options and limit undue injury to civilians.
The main premise behind Israel’s airstrikes this June was that Iran would develop a nuclear weapon in a few months to a year. Netanyahu’s position may seem reasonable considering the damage a nuclear warhead would do.
However, such claims are inadequate because the truth resists simplicity. I do believe Iran had enriched uranium to a degree where they could complete a weapon in under a year. However, were they actively pursuing one?
The Israeli government says yes, but they have lied about Iran’s nuclear timeline before. The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Rafael Grossi and U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard disagree, saying there is no such evidence. Perhaps Mossad has access to information the DNI does not, but on the other hand, the IAEA has little incentive to lie.
What if Iran does get a nuclear weapon? After all, Iran is known to sponsor a number of terrorist and insurgent organizations, and has made repeated death threats against Israel. The idea of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon is one I have little stomach for.
However, one must consider these factors practically. Would Iran ever give a nuclear device to Hamas or Hezbollah? No. We saw Hamas initiate the Oct. 7 attacks with little advance warning to Iran or other proxies. Hamas and Hezbollah were both recently decimated. Iran may support them, but it also views these groups as risky.
Finally, Iran would not use nuclear weapons against Israel given Israel’s own arsenal. Were Iran to attempt a strike, Israel would undoubtedly have time to launch its nukes against Iranian cities.
Even if it was necessary for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear program, did they exhaust all diplomatic options? No. It is not clear Netanyahu even tried. Even the supposed “Great Satan” was able to sit at the table with Iran, but for some reason Netanyahu did not believe it feasible for Israel to do so.
America, on the other hand, did have an agreement: the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The biggest alleged bug of the JCPOA – the 10- and 15-year limits on centrifuge development and low-level uranium enrichment – was actually a feature, meant to bring parties back to the negotiating table to develop a more permanent deal. It was also meant to be a victory for the Iranian government’s moderate faction led by then-President Hassan Rouhani.
President Trump, in his infinite wisdom, tore up the deal instead of improving it. The result? Rouhani was barred from running for president again, leading to a more extreme Iranian administration.
Trump did barely attempt to negotiate a new settlement recently. However, Iran has already enriched a significant amount of uranium to a near-weapons grade level and stockpiled it in various locations that we mostly do not know about and are therefore unable to completely destroy.
As for the undue damage component, 400+ Iranian civilians have been killed. Some airstrikes are definitely “safer” than others. The American strike on Fordow likely had limited casualties given both the advance warning and the remote location, while on the other hand the Israeli strikes on Iranian military leadership in Tehran definitely killed spouses, children, neighbors and others.
If the civilian casualty rate was negligible and diplomatic efforts were exhausted, I would probably support just the strikes on nuclear facilities (not scientists or the military brass residences).
However, our rashness means future U.S. administrations will find it harder to negotiate deals in the future, as countries will realize so long as the United States could elect far-right leaders who chronically lie and undo accords without a second’s thought, the State Department will be unreliable and untrustworthy. That will lead to more war and death in the future.
