Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long been a source of concern for the global community, particularly for the United States and its allies. This blog will explore why the US must consider a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities as a critical measure to prevent the country from developing nuclear weapons. While Iran has repeatedly claimed its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes like energy generation, the reality tells a different story. With multiple heavily fortified nuclear sites, uranium enrichment far beyond what's necessary for civilian use, and plans for nuclear warheads, Iran's actions point toward an undeniable pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Though Israel has historically expressed its own willingness to act against Iran’s nuclear program, its capability to carry out such a mission is more limited. Israel faces a much higher operational risk due to distance, logistics, and the complexities of striking heavily fortified sites. By contrast, the US possesses the military power, technology, and global reach to execute a successful preemptive strike with significantly reduced risk. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a significant threat—not just to the Middle East but to global stability—and the US must take decisive action before it’s too late.
This blog will concentrate on Iran’s nuclear plans and present an argument as to why the United States should conduct a preemptive strike on the nuclear facilities in Iran. Iran has consistently claimed over the years that its nuclear program is solely for power generation, not for developing nuclear weapons. Rather than delving into a lengthy discussion about the evidence contradicting Iran’s claims of pursuing peaceful nuclear power, I'll highlight just a few key reasons why this isn’t the case.
Iran has built 16 facilities, most of which are underground and heavily fortified. Additionally, they have been caught with plans to develop nuclear warheads—something unnecessary for peaceful purposes. They have also enriched uranium to levels far exceeding what is needed for power generation. Combined with other evidence, some of it classified, these actions point to one clear conclusion: Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon.
Iran having a nuclear weapon would cause a change globally. Saudi Arabia would immediately start looking to develop nuclear weapons. Iran’s nuclear capability, in alignment with Russia and China, could shift the global balance of power and potentially trigger a nuclear war between
Iran and Israel. To support this statement, in 2006 I was asked by the CIA to write an unclassified paper addressing the question: "If Iran developed a nuclear weapon, would they use it or not?"
I wrote a lengthy paper and defended it, demonstrating how Iran having a nuclear weapon is significantly different from other countries who currently have nuclear weapons. (Please contact me if you want access to that PowerPoint brief). Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been a long-standing challenge for US security interests, the stability of the Middle East, and global nuclear non-proliferation efforts. Recent intelligence indicates Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon.
Key Argument: The US must act decisively to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear capability, as an Iranian nuclear weapon poses a greater long-term threat than the risks associated with a preemptive strike. Relying on Israel for this mission would be less effective and more destabilizing. If the United States chooses not to act against these nuclear facilities, it will pressure Israel to launch a preemptive strike before a weapon can be developed. The 2nd and 3rd order of effects are more harmful to regional and global stability then actions by the United States. Here are some reasons and effects:
Strategic Threat of a Nuclear Iran
Geopolitical Instability: A nuclear-armed Iran would drastically alter the balance of power in the Middle East. Iran’s influence, already notable in countries like Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, would be further emboldened, and it could trigger a regional nuclear arms race (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt, UAE).
Global Security Concerns: Iran’s development of nuclear weapons could jeopardize international efforts to maintain nuclear non-proliferation (under the NPT framework). A breakdown in these efforts would inspire other nations to pursue nuclear capabilities.
The Terrorism Nexus: Iran’s ties to proxy terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah, would become more dangerous. A nuclear umbrella could allow Iran to escalate its support for militias and non-state actors without fear of retaliation.
Diplomacy Has Failed: Years of diplomatic talks, sanctions, and international agreements, including the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), have not succeeded in permanently halting Iran’s nuclear progress. Tehran has consistently violated agreements, limited oversight by the IAEA, and expanded its uranium enrichment program beyond agreed limits.
Why a US Strike is Necessary
Superior Military Capabilities: The US military possesses the technological and operational superiority needed for a comprehensive and effective strike against Iran’s dispersed and fortified nuclear facilities. Key advantages include:
Advanced stealth bombers (e.g., B-2 Spirit) capable of penetrating Iran’s sophisticated air defense systems.
Precision-guided munitions capable of targeting deeply buried facilities, such as the Fordow uranium enrichment site.
A global intelligence network to track Iranian movements and prevent retaliation through proxy networks.
Minimizing Collateral Damage: The US has the military precision and intelligence to strike with minimal collateral damage, a critical concern in densely populated regions. The use of targeted cyber-attacks (akin to the Stuxnet operation) could also degrade Iran’s nuclear infrastructure without the need for extensive bombing campaigns.
Global Legitimacy: The US is better positioned to justify and manage the diplomatic fallout of a strike. A US-led operation could be framed as a defense of the international order, potentially winning tacit support from Europe, the Gulf States, and even parts of the international community wary of Iran’s growing influence.
Timing and Surprise: A coordinated US strike would be far more effective than a piecemeal Israeli attack. The element of surprise, combined with overwhelming force, is critical to crippling Iran’s program before it can retaliate or harden its defenses further.
Opportunities That Could Have Been Used to Strike These Targets (or a Portion): Part of strategic deterrence is the communication to an adversary of what actions will be taken should they not conform to demands or take an action that is counter to the United States’ allowable level or red lines. The second part of strategic deterrence is having the capability to deter an action based on the threat. Finally, the third part of strategic deterrence is having the “WILL” to carry out the action which is known by the enemy and believable.
In response to the evolving situation with Iran and the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel, President Biden's warning to Iran only used the word "Don't" when cautioning against attacks on US forces in the region or on Israel. After 220 attacks on US forces, both on the sea and in the region, the United states has yet to attack any Iran targets in Iran. Additionally, Iran’s direct attack on Israel, involving 300 drones, ballistic missiles, and 130 cruise missiles, was met with defensive ability to shoot down those systems, but no repercussion for conducting the attack by the United States.
Both of these provocative actions could have justified the United States retaliating against Iran for crossing the red line. This would have been a great opportunity to hit the nucleus of Iran at the time. I believe Iran has refrained from further involvement since the attack, as they are focusing on advancing their weapons development and likely want to avoid provoking any retaliatory actions during this critical phase. Israel’s operations against Hezbollah were aimed at safeguarding their citizens from missile threats in the north, but they also served to provoke a response from Iran, which backs Hezbollah as one of its proxy forces. However, Iran's direct response has been restrained, largely due to the time it needs to continue advancing its weapons program. Iran has deliberately withheld acting to assist Hezbollah, primarily to buy the time necessary to push forward its nuclear weapons development. This explains why Israel’s actions in Lebanon have not triggered a major direct retaliation from Iran. Incidents like the bombing of Hezbollah-affiliated operatives, the injury of senior IRGC generals and an Iranian ambassador, and even the assassination of a Hamas leader in Tehran have all gone unanswered, reflecting Iran's strategic patience in favor of furthering its nuclear ambitions.
Using a Tactical Analogy to Describe this Strategic Decision: If a high school student publicly expressed intentions to shoot up a school and harm students and teachers, it should prompt immediate and proactive action. If a mental evaluation reveals diagnosed mental health issues, would this increase the potential threat? Finally, if the student was actively attempting to buy a weapon off the streets or could have access to weapons elsewhere, what would be a responsible response? Should we wait until after a school shooting to discuss all the warning signs? No, the threat would be taken seriously, and swift and immediate action would be taken to eliminate the threat. On the macro strategic level of decisions this is almost a parallel to Iranian past behavior and the evidence of pushing toward nuclear weapon aspirations. To allow them to gain the weapon is irresponsible.
Risks of Leaving the Strike to Israel
Israel’s Limited Capabilities: While Israel has successfully conducted precision strikes against nuclear facilities in the past (e.g., Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981, Syria’s Al-Kibar facility in 2007), Iran’s program is far more advanced and dispersed. Israel's key limitations include:
Distance: Israeli fighter jets would need to fly a long distance, requiring mid-air refueling, and would be exposed to multiple layers of Iranian air defenses, making it difficult to mount a sustained or comprehensive campaign.
Limited Payload Capacity: Israeli jets lack the heavy bunker-busting munitions needed to destroy heavily fortified sites like Fordow.
Geopolitical Backlash: An Israeli strike would be perceived as an act of aggression by much of the Middle East and Europe, leading to severe diplomatic consequences. It could also provoke retaliation against Israel’s population centers, putting millions at risk.
Escalation Risks: An Israeli strike would likely escalate regional tensions faster and more chaotically. Hezbollah, based in Lebanon and backed by Iran, could launch a barrage of rockets at Israeli cities in retaliation, leading to a prolonged conflict that destabilizes the entire region.
Iran’s Domestic Response: A US strike, framed as an international effort to maintain global security, might be met with outrage but also grudging acceptance from parts of the Iranian public. However, an Israeli strike would likely unify Iran against Israel, inflaming anti-Israel and anti-Western sentiment, thereby strengthening the Iranian regime’s grip on power.
Consequences of Inaction
Regional Nuclear Arms Race: If the US does not act, Iran’s successful development of a nuclear weapon could lead Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt to pursue their own nuclear deterrents. The prospect of multiple nuclear-armed states in a historically volatile region increases the chance of miscalculations and nuclear conflict.
Increased Threat to Israel: A nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to Israel, a key US ally. The Iranian regime’s rhetoric often includes the destruction of Israel, and while a direct nuclear strike may not be probable, Iran could shield its proxies under a nuclear umbrella, allowing them to attack Israel with impunity. In international relations theory; countries are either considered “rational actor” or “not rational actor”. To summarize this term, it is the assumption that all countries work in their own interest and will only do the things that they believe will increase their stature and minimize their risk. Countries will not take certain actions if they believe it's not in their interest or if the risk is so great against that action that it could harm their country. In a paper I wrote in 2006, I argued that Iran cannot be considered a rational actor due to its religious pursuit of chaos, which is a key element of its eschatological worldview.
Weakened US Influence: Failure to act would signal a retreat from US leadership in the Middle East and weaken alliances with Arab states that look to the US for security. This could open the door for Russian and Chinese influence to expand in the region, reducing US leverage.
The Aftermath of a US Strike: Managing the Fallout
Diplomatic Efforts to Prevent Retaliation: The US would need to work closely with allies in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) to prepare for Iranian retaliation. Diplomatic backchannels could be used to assure Iran that a strike is not a precursor to regime change but a specific response to the nuclear threat.
Rebuilding International Consensus: The US must emphasize that the strike is a last-resort measure taken to protect global security. Rebuilding the international consensus on nuclear non-proliferation and ensuring that Iran faces continued diplomatic and economic pressure is essential for long-term stability.
Economic Considerations: The global energy market could face immediate disruption following a US strike on Iran, as Tehran could retaliate by targeting shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies. The US must prepare contingency plans to mitigate the economic impact.
Long-term Strategy for Iran: The US strike must be coupled with a long-term diplomatic strategy to address Iran’s grievances, integrate it into the global economy, and reduce the likelihood of further escalation. The goal should be to eventually bring Iran back into compliance with international norms, but with the clear understanding that nuclear weapons will never be tolerated.
Conclusion: A Necessary Action for Global Security
The decision to launch a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities is not one to be taken lightly, but the risks of inaction far outweigh the potential consequences of a carefully planned and executed mission. A US-led operation offers the best chance of success, minimizes regional instability, and upholds the international commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation. While Israel is a key partner, relying on it for this mission would lead to greater risks and less effective outcomes. The United States, as the world’s preeminent military and diplomatic power, must take the lead in neutralizing this existential threat.
There are many more details I would like to share with those who are involved within the Middle East conflict to gain perspective and further explore some of the topics mentioned in this blog. If you'd like to discuss the details of this blog, feel free to contact me. We can have a conversation in either a classified or unclassified environment, depending on the nature of the discussion. While I’ve covered a broad range of topics here, each point carries significant 2nd and 3rd order of effects that warrant further exploration. I’d be happy to delve into these considerations with you.
If you need assistance with writing, research, or refining details regarding the case for a US strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, don't hesitate to reach out to me at Tony.thacker@i3solutions.com.
Excellent case for a preemptive action but I’m not holding my breath..