After Israel struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, many questioned the justification, as Iran’s uranium enrichment appeared more like a pressure tactic than an immediate weapons push. Iran miscalculated, underestimating Israel’s resolve, reports Michal Smetana of War on the Rocks. While some facilities were damaged, Iran likely still holds key nuclear materials and capabilities. With its strategy to force a U.S. deal failing, Iran faces a choice: halt enrichment or escalate. The strikes may empower hardliners pushing for weaponization, especially as Iran halts IAEA inspections, raising the risk of it becoming a nuclear-armed state in 2025. Smetana writes:
After Israel struck Iran’s nuclear facilities, there were good reasons to be skeptical about the official justification for launching the operation. After all, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a decades-long history of crying wolf about the “imminent threat” of Iran pursuing nuclear weapons. When Israel recently presented the United States with what was supposed to be new evidence of Iran’s sprint towards the bomb, American officials were less than convinced.
Yet, every skeptical voice ultimately had to deal with what seemed to be the key question: Why else would Iran recently produce such large stocks of highly enriched uranium, if not to build nuclear weapons? […]
After President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Tehran was left with a limited set of response options. One option was to condemn Washington’s breach of the agreement and keep upholding its end. From a purely external security perspective, this approach would carry minimal short-term risks. However, in the long run, the regime would appear weak, while the Iranian economy would continue to be battered by sweeping American sanctions. […]
After the failure of Iran’s strategy to compel the United States into a new deal, Iran now faces few good options. It could still accept the zero-enrichment proposal, but this would be akin to admitting strategic defeat, something that Iranian elites will likely see as a humiliation that would make the regime appear weak and potentially endanger it over the long haul. Relying on nuclear latency as a coercive strategy vis-á-vis Washington will probably not be seen as a wise choice: The equilibrium has now shifted, and it is extremely improbable that the United States (and Israel) would now accept any Iranian enrichment, as that would invalidate their earlier justifications for the strikes.
Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the attacks will now embolden the Iranian hawks, who will claim that the “hedging” strategy has failed, and the only alternative is to cross the nuclear Rubicon and build a reliable nuclear deterrent, in a way North Korea did in the 2000s. […]
Read more here.
