Reflections on the Israel-Iran Conflict

On a Thursday afternoon in California, I boarded a flight with my kids, marking the start of my temporary journey to Washington, D.C. Before leaving, I checked the news and saw rumors circulating about a potential Israeli attack on Iran, though nothing concrete emerged by the time we took off.

Interestingly, the flight didn’t offer WiFi—quite a rarity these days. So, I settled in to write some offline columns. There was this nagging worry about a prevailing skepticism, especially surrounding American rights and Israel’s capability to execute successful operations.

Just to clarify, I didn’t truly believe an Israeli strike was on the immediate horizon. However, I was quite confident that if Israel were to act against Iran, especially unilaterally, it would likely achieve its goals. Israel has a history of resilience, after all.

What I was writing about coincidentally lined up perfectly with Israel’s actions, which I wasn’t aware of at the time. Here’s what I noted:

The U.S. should take the lead or at least support airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities to hinder its nuclear weapons development and prevent the transfer of dangerous materials and technology to terrorist groups.

Clearly, Iran poses a significant threat. It has a troubling record of aggression against U.S. forces, both directly and through its proxies. While Israel stands out as a primary target, it certainly isn’t alone in facing these threats.

It’s worth noting that many attacks have come unprovoked. For instance, Hamas, which is backed by Iran, violated a ceasefire with a significant assault on October 7, 2023.

In any case, allowing Iran to go nuclear seems exceedingly foolish. Hence, both the U.S. and Israel have hinted at using airstrikes to dismantle Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

These airstrikes wouldn’t resemble full-scale invasions but would be more surgical, akin to Israel’s successful strikes on Iraqi reactors back in 1981 and Syria’s nuclear program in 2007.

For those worried about escalating conflicts or backlash, it’s essential to recognize that Iran is already, in many ways, at war—through entities like Hamas, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and various militias in Iraq.

Over the past several months, these proxy groups have suffered significant losses, making their future offensives unpredictable. Iran’s air defenses, too, have faced considerable degradation from Israeli attacks.

Interestingly, the Iranian populace isn’t inherently hostile towards the U.S. Many individuals crave freedom from their government and might view foreign interventions as an opportunity for change. They likely wouldn’t support a war with the U.S.

In theory, diplomatic solutions would be preferable to conflict, but it seems unlikely that any agreement will effectively contain Iran’s nuclear program. Iran seems adept at stalling through negotiations.

The original nuclear deal crafted by President Obama in 2015 placed only temporary limits on Iran’s program, leaving its missile ambitions unchecked.

This concern led President Trump to withdraw from the deal in 2018, initiating a “maximum pressure” strategy aimed at containing the Iranian regime and pushing for stricter accord terms.

The approach Trump took was largely abandoned by President Biden, who invested four years in a fruitless attempt to revive negotiations. Iran, for its part, accelerated its nuclear activities almost immediately after Biden took office.

When Trump regained his position, he reinstated “maximum pressure,” which nudged Iran back to the negotiating table. Yet, Iran refused to agree to terms significantly more stringent than Obama’s original deal.

Achieving a favorable outcome is still possible—ideally, it would involve dismantling Iran’s entire nuclear enrichment program, halting its missile development, and ceasing its support for terrorism.

In an ideal world, any agreement would include provisions for monitoring human rights within the country and mechanisms to avert sanctions.

However, the current administration shows minimal willingness for compromise. They appear to believe they can secure a better deal with time, essentially waiting for a change in the political landscape.

Both the Obama and Biden administrations seem resigned to Iran emerging as a dominant regional power. This has fostered a tense and unstable environment and, ironically, has led to a greater likelihood of conflict by avoiding direct confrontations.

Trump’s perspective differed. In 2020, he authorized the assassination of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, an act that, despite warnings of a broader conflict, resulted in a limited Iranian response.

Today, resistance to military action isn’t just a left-leaning sentiment; even some factions on the right express concerns about potential foreign entanglements and the risk of another protracted conflict.

Should Trump view military involvement as politically detrimental, it’s vital that he still backs Israel if it becomes clear that Iran’s threat cannot be ignored any longer.

Critics of military intervention have valid points regarding potential risks. However, one cannot ignore that the Iranian regime possessing nuclear weapons is perhaps the gravest danger to the Middle East and beyond.

If military action stands off the table, the Iranian leadership lacks motivation to negotiate. Israel is simply too vulnerable to exist in a world where Iran has nuclear capabilities, pushing it toward preemptive action.

Ironically, those who oppose military action might inadvertently cultivate the conditions for conflict. It would be wiser to address this matter preemptively before Iran has time to fortify its defenses and develop its nuclear arsenal further. Trump attempted to leverage the situation as best he could. At this juncture, other avenues appear limited.

About two hours into the flight, my phone—still not switched to airplane mode—picked up a brief signal. During that time, I saw several messages confirming that Israel’s actions against Iran had indeed begun.

The extent of Israel’s achievements is remarkable. As I noted earlier, the specifics of the situation are still unclear, and we are left wondering how Iran will respond. Already, Israel has managed to intercept initial drone threats from Iran.

What’s evident is that Israel has exceeded expectations in its efforts to hinder Iran’s nuclear initiatives. President Trump has been supportive of these Israeli airstrikes, suggesting they could serve as leverage in discussions with Iran.

Maintaining a pathway for diplomacy is prudent. Still, any agreement made should hinge upon Iran’s capitulation.

Perhaps one day, and hopefully soon, a reformed Iran will extend a hand to the U.S. in friendship. That’s a prospect worth pursuing.