As tensions simmer between Israel and Iran, Israeli leaders like Benjamin Netanyahu are aligning with figures such as Donald Trump to dismantle the JCPOA nuclear agreement. While Netanyahu’s rhetoric has shifted to suggesting “fixing” the deal, the underlying objective appears to be its ultimate collapse. Subjecting Iran to new conditions would likely prompt Tehran to abandon the agreement, unraveling years of diplomacy.
But alongside efforts to undermine the deal, there’s a growing resurgence of threats regarding a possible preemptive war with Iran. Netanyahu’s speech at the UN General Assembly in September resurrected this idea, suggesting that Iran’s nuclear ambitions remain unchecked despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and U.S. intelligence reporting the opposite. For the first time in a global forum, Netanyahu issued warnings typically reserved for domestic audiences, implying that countries threatening Israel’s existence would face “mortal danger.”
This sentiment has been echoed by Israeli officials. Intelligence Minister Israel Katz has declared that Israel would act militarily against Iran if the U.S. failed to stop its nuclear ambitions. Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman has described the need to counter Iran’s regional influence, and right-wing think tanks are calling for immediate military action. The re-emergence of these warlike declarations harkens back to the pre-JCPOA era when talk of an independent Israeli strike against Iran dominated headlines.
The Risks of a Preventative Strike
The notion of a preemptive strike against Iran draws comparisons to Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, which successfully neutralized a singular target. However, striking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would involve a far more complex operation, targeting dozens of heavily fortified sites spread across thousands of kilometers. This would not be a surgical strike but rather a full-scale declaration of war.
History shows that expectations of a swift and decisive military victory often prove unrealistic. Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Iran in 1980, envisioned as a short campaign, devolved into a grueling eight-year conflict. Similarly, any Israeli strike on Iran could trigger a prolonged and unpredictable war, entangling multiple fronts and drawing in proxy forces across the region.
Beyond the immediate military risks, rhetoric around preventative strikes could itself ignite conflict. Iran might interpret Israel’s threats as preparation for an imminent attack and take what it perceives as defensive action, such as launching missiles on Israel’s northern front. This, in turn, could lead to a dangerous escalation, drawing in actors from Lebanon, Syria, and beyond.
Diplomatic and Strategic Obstacles
Israel faces significant obstacles in garnering U.S. support for a preventative strike. The United States, committed to upholding the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), cannot justify supporting an attack by a non-signatory state (Israel) against a country that remains compliant with both the NPT and the JCPOA (Iran). The IAEA and U.S. intelligence confirm that Iran is adhering to the nuclear deal, making accusations of violations baseless.
Legitimacy is another hurdle. In international law, there is a crucial distinction between a preventative strike—intended to neutralize a speculative future threat—and a preemptive strike, which responds to an immediate and clear danger. While Israel’s 1967 Six-Day War serves as a legitimate example of the latter, a preventative strike on Iran would more closely resemble the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, justified by nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. That war’s devastating consequences remain a cautionary tale for military adventurism.
The Fallout of War
A war with Iran would likely have the opposite effect of what Israel intends. An Israeli strike could push Iran to abandon the nuclear deal and the NPT altogether, accelerating its nuclear weapons program. The JCPOA, which successfully curtailed Iran’s nuclear ambitions and prevented a regional arms race, could unravel, leaving Israel more vulnerable than before.
Such a conflict would also strain Israel’s relations with Western allies, deepen instability in the Middle East, and embolden Iran to escalate its proxy wars. A preventative strike, far from ensuring security, risks plunging Israel into a long, costly war of attrition, with far-reaching consequences for regional and global stability.
A Call for Prudence
Endless threats and saber-rattling may push Israel closer to an unnecessary and catastrophic conflict. Instead of dismantling diplomatic agreements that have successfully contained Iran’s nuclear program, Israeli leadership should prioritize dialogue and international cooperation. Preventing war, not provoking it, is the only path to lasting security in the Middle East.
Israel must resist the lure of unilateral military action and avoid a self-fulfilling prophecy that could leave the region and the world facing the very threats it seeks to prevent.
