It may be months or years before we’ll know the full results of Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear and military targets, which began early Friday morning and could last for days or weeks. But critics of the strike — and already they are vocal — might at least ask themselves whether Israel had any realistic alternative against an adversary that has repeatedly vowed to wipe it off the map.
Barely a day before the strike, the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, representing 35 nations, declared that Iran was in violation of its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. The agency’s technical report points to “rapid accumulation of highly enriched uranium,” a failure by Iran to provide “technically credible answers regarding the nuclear material at three locations” and Iran’s “insistence on a unique and unilateral approach to its legally binding obligation.”
In plain English, Iran has been deceiving the world for years while gathering the means to build multiple nuclear weapons. In a better world, diplomacy would have forestalled and perhaps eliminated the need for Israeli military action.
But President Donald Trump, who tried to dissuade Israel from striking, failed to get a deal after five rounds of negotiations and noted this week that Tehran had become “much more aggressive” in the talks. Make of his testimony what you will, but it’s worth recalling that a much more pliant and patient Biden administration spent years trying to reach an agreement, and also gave up in frustration with Iran’s repeated prevarications.
As for other alternatives, the clandestine means of sabotage and targeted assassinations that Israel had long used, and which probably delayed Iran’s nuclear breakout moment by years, had plainly run their course — otherwise, Israel would have continued to use them rather than risk Iranian retaliatory strikes using drones and missiles that could overwhelm Israel’s defenses.