|
Trending Topics
|
Israeli or U.S. Action Against Iran: Who Will Do It If It Must Be Done?
(Atlantic) James Cartwright and Amos Yadlin - Israel's military capability to strike Iran's proliferating nuclear sites - especially those bunkered deep within a mountain, such as Fordow - is more limited than that of the U.S. Israel's window for military action is therefore closing, while Washington's more advanced capabilities mean that it can wait. Yet the Iranian nuclear program does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. as it does to Israel, so only an Israeli attack could legitimately claim self-defense. Any Israeli attack would necessarily be surgical, with less collateral damage. This is a significant advantage. After such an attack, the Iranian regime would still have a lot to lose, and its retaliation would likely be much more measured. Mechanically damaging Iran's nuclear program is not an end goal in itself, since no amount of bombs can destroy Iran's nuclear knowhow. Any strike must necessarily be followed by negotiations and a self-enforcing diplomatic deal that prevents Tehran from reconstituting the program in the future. Gen. James Cartwright, USMC (ret.), is the Harold Brown chair in defense policy studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, IDF (ret.), is director of Israel's Institute for National Security Studies and former chief of Israeli defense intelligence.