Assessing Israel’s Ability to Target Iran’s Nuclear Program in a Post-Assad Context

The Middle East’s geopolitical landscape has always been marked by tension, conflict, and a web of intricate alliances. At the center of these upheavals lies the contentious relationship between Israel and Iran, particularly regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Israel views a nuclear-armed Iran as an existential threat, fueling debates about potential military action to neutralize this perceived danger. Israel’s intention and ability to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities—whether independently or with U.S. assistance—are now being evaluated against the backdrop of recent developments, including the Trump administration’s policies and the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria.

Israeli-Iranian Relations: A Historical Context

Israel and Iran have been adversaries since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, which transformed Iran into a religious state hostile to Israel. Over the years, this animosity has been exacerbated by Iran’s support for armed groups, its anti-Israel rhetoric, and its pursuit of nuclear technology. Of these, Iran’s nuclear advancements have become a focal point of concern for Israeli leaders, who argue that a nuclear-capable Iran would pose a direct threat to Israel’s security.

In recent years, Iran has made significant progress in its nuclear program, prompting Israel to adopt an increasingly aggressive stance. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has consistently underscored the necessity of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, frequently emphasizing that military action might be required if diplomatic efforts fail. Netanyahu has repeatedly stated that “Israel will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power.”

The Trump Administration’s Approach to Iran

Former President Donald Trump’s approach to Iran marked a sharp departure from his predecessors. In May 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a multilateral agreement aimed at curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Trump’s decision was rooted in the belief that the deal was fundamentally flawed and allowed Iran to continue enriching uranium while funding regional military activities.

Following the withdrawal, Trump launched a “maximum pressure” campaign, reimposing sanctions that had been lifted under the JCPOA. This strategy aimed to cripple Iran’s economy and force it back to the negotiating table. Critics, however, argue that this approach only heightened tensions, intensifying Iranian aggression both in its nuclear program and its regional activities.

As tensions escalated, the Trump administration began considering military options against Iran. Reports suggested that airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities were being evaluated as a last-resort measure, amidst fears that economic pressure alone would be insufficient to contain Tehran’s ambitions. Trump’s rhetoric during this period reflected a willingness to consider military action if necessary.

Military Capability: Can Israel Act Alone?

While Israel possesses one of the most advanced militaries globally, its ability to dismantle Iran’s extensive nuclear infrastructure independently remains a subject of debate. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have demonstrated their capabilities through precision strikes on Iranian assets in Syria and other locations. For example, Israeli airstrikes have successfully targeted weapon shipments bound for Hezbollah and reportedly hit Iranian military installations in Syria.

However, experts argue that Iran’s nuclear program is deeply entrenched and dispersed across multiple fortified sites, many of which are underground. Key facilities, such as Natanz and Fordow, are designed to withstand aerial bombardment, making it challenging for Israel to execute a comprehensive strike without substantial intelligence and military support. Additionally, Israel would need to conduct multiple strikes across various sites to effectively disable Iran’s capabilities.

The Role of U.S. Support

The United States plays a crucial role in any potential Israeli military operation against Iran. Historically, U.S. administrations have been cautious about endorsing military strikes due to the risk of regional escalation. However, under Trump’s leadership, there was a clear shift toward seriously considering military options.

Trump’s willingness to explore airstrikes as part of his strategy against Iran suggested a greater readiness to support Israeli actions than under previous administrations. This marked a departure from President Joe Biden’s approach, which prioritized diplomatic engagement with Tehran following Trump’s withdrawal from the JCPOA.

U.S. military assets are essential for addressing Iran’s deeply buried facilities, which Israel alone may not be able to neutralize. Joint training exercises and intelligence sharing between the U.S. and Israel significantly enhance Israel’s operational capabilities. Should Israel decide to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities under a Trump-like administration, U.S. support would likely be critical for the mission’s success and for mitigating Iran’s retaliatory actions.

Regional Dynamics: The Impact of Assad’s Fall

The recent fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has dramatically altered the strategic landscape for both Israel and Iran. With Assad’s regime collapsing after opposition forces took control of Damascus on December 8, 2024, uncertainty looms over Iran’s influence in Syria. The absence of Assad creates a power vacuum that complicates Iran’s operations, which Assad’s regime had previously facilitated.

While Assad’s fall is seen as a setback for both Russia and Iran in their efforts to maintain influence in Syria, it raises concerns about how this shift will affect Iran’s military presence near Israel. Without Assad as a stabilizing ally for Tehran, there is potential for increased instability within Syria, potentially allowing greater Iranian maneuverability or even direct confrontation with Israeli forces. New factions emerging in Syria may also seek alliances with Tehran, further complicating the situation.

Risks of Military Action

Although military action may seem like a viable option for Israel, it carries significant risks. Striking Iran’s nuclear facilities would provoke a severe retaliatory response from Tehran, potentially escalating into a broader regional conflict involving proxy groups like Hezbollah or even direct confrontations with Iranian forces. The fallout from such an attack could destabilize neighboring states, cause civilian casualties, and exacerbate an already volatile situation.

Additionally, unilateral Israeli action without U.S. support could strain relationships with key allies and undermine diplomatic efforts to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions through negotiations rather than military means.

Conclusion

While Israel remains committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and has shown a willingness to take military action when necessary—particularly during Trump’s presidency—it faces significant challenges in dismantling Iran’s extensive nuclear program independently. U.S. involvement remains crucial for any comprehensive strategy to neutralize Iran’s nuclear capabilities effectively.

The fall of Assad adds another layer of complexity, potentially altering regional dynamics in ways that could either constrain or embolden Iran’s actions. As Israel weighs its options, the risks of military action must be carefully balanced against the broader consequences for regional stability and international relations.