Will Israel attack Iran's nuclear sites?

Al Arabiya

04-06-2025

Recent intelligence reports suggested that Israel has been actively preparing for potential military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. However, despite the mounting military preparedness, US President Donald Trump has reportedly advised Israel not to proceed with the strikes, calling such a move 'inappropriate' at this time. Trump's position may have created tension within Israeli leadership circles, as they weigh the urgency they see in neutralizing Iran's nuclear threat against the strategic necessity of maintaining full American backing.
For all the latest headlines follow our Google News channel online or via the app.
This situation raises a critical question: Will Israel proceed with unilateral strikes on Iran's nuclear program without approval from the United States? The answer is complex and hinges on several intersecting factors, chief among them being the outcome of current negotiations between Iran and the US over the nuclear issue. These negotiations are taking place behind closed doors. Israeli officials are particularly concerned that the type of agreement reached – or not reached – between Washington and Tehran could either open the door to military intervention or close it off entirely, at least for the short term. The nature of the deal matters more than the existence of one. A robust, restrictive agreement that dismantles Iran's nuclear infrastructure would ease Israeli concerns, but a weaker arrangement that leaves Iran's enrichment capabilities intact could act as a trigger for military action.
From Israel's perspective, time is not on their side. While diplomacy may offer a temporary solution, Israeli leadership – from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to military chiefs – has consistently expressed deep skepticism toward the Iranian government's intentions. They do not believe Tehran will adhere to any long-term agreement, especially given Iran's history of evasion and non-compliance. In Tel Aviv's view, the only reliable way to ensure Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon is to physically destroy its capability to do so. This could include enrichment facilities, research centers, and underground bunkers. Israeli officials fear that relying on diplomatic assurances will merely allow Iran to bide its time, rebuild its infrastructure, and break out toward a weapon at a moment of their choosing.
Adding to Israel's sense of urgency is the shifting geopolitical landscape of the region. Over the past year, Iran has suffered a series of significant strategic losses. Perhaps most consequentially, the Assad regime in Syria – one of Iran's most crucial allies – collapsed. With Assad gone, Iran's ability to project power across the Levant has been severely compromised. Simultaneously, Iranian-backed proxies such as Hezbollah have come under relentless pressure, both militarily and politically. These setbacks have eroded Iran's regional standing and weakened the deterrent shield it once relied on. Israel, recognizing the new regional dynamics, sees an opportunity to strike while Iran is relatively isolated and vulnerable.
Moreover, the political context within the United States also plays a key role. Even with a favorable regional and political environment, Israel remains acutely aware of the risks involved in launching unilateral military action. One of the biggest constraints is its relationship with the United States. Israel's security and economic lifeline is intimately tied to American support, both diplomatically and militarily. A strike without US approval could rupture this alliance, inviting long-term consequences. Moreover, Iran has made it abundantly clear that any attack on its nuclear facilities will be met with severe retaliation. Tehran possesses an arsenal of ballistic missiles and asymmetric warfare capabilities that could inflict significant damage on Israeli territory and interests. In the face of such retaliation, Israel would almost certainly require US military and logistical assistance, especially if the conflict were to escalate into a protracted confrontation.
One possible scenario in which Israel decides not to strike Iran is if the United States and Iran reach a nuclear deal that resembles the so-called 'Libyan model.' Under this model, Iran would be required to completely dismantle its nuclear infrastructure, ship out enriched uranium, halt all enrichment activities, and submit to intrusive international inspections. A deal of this nature would offer Israel concrete, verifiable assurances that Iran would not be able to develop a nuclear weapon in the foreseeable future. Israeli officials would likely view such an agreement as a satisfactory alternative to military action – at least temporarily – because it would remove the immediate threat and avoid the risks of war.
On the other hand, if the negotiations yield a deal similar to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Israeli response may be very different. Under the JCPOA, Iran was allowed to maintain significant elements of its nuclear infrastructure and retain the right to enrich uranium to low levels. Critics argue that the JCPOA merely postponed Iran's nuclear ambitions rather than dismantling them. From Israel's point of view, such a deal would not prevent Iran from eventually building a nuclear weapon – it would merely delay the timeline. In this case, Israeli leaders may choose to carry out limited and targeted strikes aimed at degrading Iran's capabilities, buying more time and signaling to Tehran that Israel will not tolerate any path to nuclear arms.
Such limited strikes could involve precision air raids on key enrichment sites like Natanz and Fordow, cyber operations to disable nuclear-related systems, and even sabotage efforts inside Iran carried out by Israeli intelligence operatives. These actions would be designed to avoid triggering an all-out war while still achieving the strategic goal of slowing or halting Iran's nuclear progress. However, even such limited actions come with high risks, especially in the form of Iranian retaliation through missile attacks or proxy strikes.
In conclusion, Israel is leaning heavily toward military action as the preferred method for addressing what it sees as an existential threat from Iran's nuclear program. But it finds itself at a critical crossroads. While the Israeli government is confident in its military capability and senses a strategic window of opportunity, it must carefully weigh the consequences of acting without American approval. The ultimate decision will likely rest on the nature of the US-Iran nuclear deal currently under discussion. If the deal is robust and verifiable, Israel may be willing to wait. But if it appears weak or toothless – especially if it allows Iran to retain nuclear capabilities – Israel may decide that it has no choice but to strike. For Israeli leaders, this may be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to neutralize a threat that has loomed over the region for decades. Yet it is also a moment fraught with peril, and the path they choose could reshape the future of the Middle East.