Concerns Over Iran’s Missile Expansion
A former high-ranking Israeli officer has raised alarms about Iran potentially enhancing its growing ballistic missile arsenal, which poses a threat not only to Israel but also to U.S. military installations and allied interests in the region. He suggested that the only real option might be a large-scale and decisive military strike to undermine the regime, especially as nuclear talks reach a pivotal stage.
In an exclusive discussion, the former commander, Gen. Amir Abibi, who has a background with the Israeli Defense Forces and now advises the defense community, emphasized that the pressing concern lies in Iran’s increased production of ballistic missiles. He made these comments just before the third round of vital nuclear negotiations took place in Geneva.
“Right now, the major issue isn’t just for Israel, but also for the U.S. military and the overall stability in the region,” Abibi noted. He pointed out that even though Iran’s nuclear facilities suffered significant damage last year, rebuilding efforts would take time. In contrast, the production capabilities for advanced missiles are improving at a much faster pace.
He further cautioned that Iranian leaders seem “determined to retaliate” following perceived humiliations that have weakened both their internal and external deterrence capabilities.
Abibi stressed that a less discussed element of this missile expansion is the possibility that Iran might look to equip some of these systems with non-conventional warheads, including chemical and biological agents. He confirmed that Israeli defense authorities are assessing their capabilities and readiness regarding such a scenario.
“There are ongoing discussions about that,” he remarked, indicating that this raises significant concerns about the immediate need for preventive actions to deter potential attacks.
In recent days, Abibi has shared similar sentiments at various conferences and interviews, underlining that despite continuous diplomatic efforts, Iran is effectively “preparing for war” and ramping up missile production. A recent report suggested that policymakers have largely focused on Iran’s nuclear ambitions while neglecting its chemical capabilities. This comes amid reports of Iranian security forces allegedly using unknown chemicals against protesters, which Tehran denies.
Looking ahead, Abibi outlined three potential scenarios for the coming weeks. The first involves an Iranian pre-emptive strike against Israeli or U.S. targets, where a sizable launch of ballistic missiles could overwhelm defenses.
He added that Israel is closely monitoring Iran’s movements. The second scenario could see Israel executing a preemptive strike if it determines that Iran has crossed key red lines. The third, and perhaps most likely, involves a military operation led by the U.S. that would heavily rely on Israeli intelligence.
“The likelihood of a major U.S.-led attack is quite high,” he asserted, noting that this period is crucial. Beyond tactical military implications, he positioned this conflict as a significant test for U.S. deterrence and credibility on a global scale, especially concerning relations with China and Russia.
However, Abibi argued that limited strikes against nuclear facilities wouldn’t suffice. If the U.S. aims to promote stability in the region, he stressed that the Iranian regime must be dismantled. He pointed out that Iran’s network of proxies, such as Hezbollah and militias in Iraq and Syria, fundamentally derives their strength from the Iranian government.
“This requires a more comprehensive and committed military approach aimed at disrupting the regime’s command structure,” he elaborated. “This isn’t just about targeting facilities; it’s about addressing the leadership and its institutions.”
For such an operation to be effective, he indicated that two critical developments must unfold simultaneously: a coordinated military assault that cripples the regime’s governance capability and an internal uprising within Iran itself.
Abibi seemed optimistic that many Iranian citizens frustrated by ongoing economic struggles would view this as an opportunity for change. In contrast, he cast doubt on diplomatic negotiations, suggesting there is “no way” to reconcile the differences between Israeli-American expectations and Iran’s potential responses.
“They will continue their path to enhancing their nuclear capabilities,” he warned, asserting the need for a substantial military response to bring down the regime. “And I believe that it will take place.”
Abibi’s warnings illustrate the complex decisions facing both Washington and Jerusalem as they prepare for negotiations in Geneva. The options boil down to securing an agreement that halts Iran’s weapons development or gearing up for a military confrontation with the potential to reshape the region.
