Israel's preemptive war could finally push Iran to go nuclear

Israel has long pursued a strategy to remain the Middle East's sole nuclear-armed state, using military force to preempt or prevent other regional powers from acquiring nuclear-weapons capabilities. But Israel's strikes on Iran risk backfiring, with a wounded foe more determined than ever to acquire the nuclear bomb.
Israel's strategic posture, institutionalized as the 'Begin Doctrine' after former Prime Minister Menachem Begin, holds that it will not allow any neighboring state to even approach nuclear-weapons capability. In practice, Israel has expanded this doctrine to block even peaceful nuclear programs under international safeguards.
The Begin Doctrine was first operationalized in 1981 with the bombing of Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor, which was built by France for peaceful research and subject to International Atomic Energy Agency inspections. Though Iraq was a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and had agreed to stringent safeguards extending beyond international inspections to prevent reactor misuse, Israel claimed Baghdad harbored military ambitions and struck preemptively.
The attack, which destroyed the $275 million reactor just before it was to become operational, was carried out with U.S.-supplied F-16 and F-15 aircraft. One French engineer and 10 Iraqi soldiers were killed. The operation triggered minimal diplomatic fallout for Israel, but pushed Saddam Hussein's nuclear program underground — an outcome that would later lead to the 2003 U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq under the false pretext of dismantling weapons of mass destruction.
In 2007, Israel again invoked the Begin Doctrine to destroy a suspected nuclear reactor under construction in Syria. The al-Kibar facility was flattened in an airstrike dubbed Operation Orchard. Israeli intelligence claimed the project, allegedly aided by North Korea, had covert military dimensions. The IAEA concluded three years later that the destroyed facility was 'very likely' a nuclear reactor under development.
These precedents pale in comparison to Israel's current military campaign against Iran, dubbed Operation Rising Lion, which aims to wipe out Iran's nuclear program. The stakes are exponentially higher: Iran is a larger, more capable adversary located beyond Israel's immediate neighborhood. And unlike Iraq or Syria in decades past, Iran has already accumulated significant nuclear know-how and material.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, invoking the Begin Doctrine, claimed that Iran was on the verge of developing nuclear weapons and vowed that Israeli strikes would continue 'as long as necessary' to neutralize the threat. But this assertion lacks backing from key intelligence assessments.
On March 25, U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified that the American intelligence community had assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' However, Gabbard — and the IAEA separately in a recent report — expressed concern over Iran's stockpile of uranium enriched to 60 percent purity, which, if enriched further to 90 percent, would become weapons-grade material. The IAEA, like Gabbard, concluded there was no evidence of a structured nuclear-weapons program underway.
Yet Israel pressed ahead with its military strikes. Netanyahu's government, in coordination with the Trump administration, seems to believe that such force will buy leverage at the diplomatic table.
In reality, the attacks are likely to achieve the opposite. Far from forcing concessions, the Israeli strikes have derailed nuclear diplomacy. Tehran has suspended talks indefinitely, accusing Washington of coordinating and authorizing the Israeli operation. This mirrors a pattern from Trump's first term, when his 'maximum pressure' campaign on Iran backfired, hardening Iranian resolve rather than moderating it.
Indeed, if Israel's goal is to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat, this strategy may prove deeply counterproductive.
Two key factors make this preemptive war particularly perilous. First, Israel cannot destroy Iran's nuclear program by military means alone. Tzachi Hanegbi, Netanyahu's own national security adviser, acknowledged on Israeli television on June 13 that Iran's program 'cannot be destroyed through kinetic means.' A negotiated settlement, he suggested, was the only sustainable option.
But with the collapse of diplomacy and deepening Iranian hostility, Israel may be forcing Iran toward the very nuclear path it wants to prevent. Tehran could emulate North Korea's playbook: withdraw from the NPT, eject IAEA inspectors and weaponize its nuclear assets at speed. North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and tested a nuclear bomb just three years later, becoming a de facto nuclear-weapons state.
Iran, heavily sanctioned and increasingly isolated, may now conclude that it has little to lose from following suit. If Iran raises enrichment from 60 percent to 90 percent purity — a short technical leap — it could rapidly convert its uranium stockpile into bomb-grade material. That would mark a historic failure of U.S. and Israeli nonproliferation strategy and hand Tehran the strategic deterrent it long claimed not to seek.
Second, the underlying logic of the Israeli campaign may no longer be about nuclear rollback but rather regime change. Netanyahu has openly called for the fall of the Iranian regime, and Israeli strikes have expanded beyond nuclear and military sites to include economic infrastructure, energy facilities and civilian aviation hubs.
This broadening of war aims could lock Israel into a prolonged military confrontation with Iran — a campaign that could exact heavy human and economic costs. Even before the Iran operation, Israeli society was showing signs of war fatigue, with growing numbers of reservists declining to report for duty.
Meanwhile, U.S. forces are increasingly entangled in the conflict. In defending Israel from retaliatory missile and drone attacks, American troops are already operating in air, land and naval roles. A broader U.S. intervention remains a distinct risk.
Israel has long justified its aggressive posture on existential grounds. Its small size and hostile environment, it argues, require proactive and sometimes disproportionate defense measures. But the line between deterrence and provocation is perilously thin — and it may now have been crossed.
History shows that Israel's pursuit of short-term tactical victories often undermines its long-term strategic interests. The Osirak attack contributed to decades of conflict in Iraq. The al-Kibar strike delayed but did not eliminate Syria's nuclear ambitions. And now, Operation Rising Lion could go down as the moment when Israel's policy of preemption made an Iranian bomb inevitable.
Israel remains the Middle East's preeminent military power, possessing not only superior conventional forces but also undeclared nuclear weapons. That should afford it the confidence to pursue measured strategies.
Instead, by trying to preserve its nuclear monopoly through force, Israel risks fueling the very proliferation spiral it has long sought to prevent.
Brahma Chellaney is a geostrategist and the author of nine books, including the award-winning 'Water: Asia's New Battleground.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Miami Herald

37 minutes ago

• Miami Herald

Large oil producers around the Persian Gulf ramp up exports

LONDON -- As fighting between Israel and Iran intensifies, the major oil producers around the Persian Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, have been racing to load tankers with exports, possibly as a hedge against future disruption. These increases are occurring despite jumps in insurance costs and shipping rates and hazards like jamming of navigation systems. Analysts say these producers are preparing for the possibility that fighting could spread to oil export installations, which have been largely spared so far, or that shipping could be disrupted through the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow passageway from the Persian Gulf through which a large portion of both oil and liquefied natural gas travel. 'They want to make sure that they reduce the risks,' said Homayoun Falakshahi, head of crude oil analysis at Kpler, a research firm. 'That means export as much as possible, as soon as possible.' Kpler estimated that Saudi Arabia's oil exports had increased 16% through mid-June from the same period in May. Other producers in the region including the United Arab Emirates and Iraq have boosted shipments around 10%, Falakshahi said. The intent appears to be to put as much oil as possible on tankers and send it out of the Persian Gulf, mostly to Asian countries such as China, which are, increasingly, the main customers for the oil producers. Although countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have improved their ties to Iran in recent years, having oil on tankers provides a buffer in case fighting spreads to their lifeblood industry. Even Iran, despite being the target of intense bombing by Israeli jets, appears to have managed a modest recent increase in exports, Kpler said. Because of U.S. sanctions on Iran, nearly all of its exports go to China. Prices for Brent crude, the international benchmark, have risen about 10% since June 13, when the conflict between Israel and Iran escalated. They dropped more than 3% Friday, to about $76 a barrel, after President Donald Trump said he would delay his decision on U.S. involvement for two weeks. There have been no serious disruptions to oil exports from the Gulf, but there are signs of increased concern about operating there. The number of empty tankers in the Persian Gulf ready to take on new cargoes has declined sharply, Falakshahi said, potentially indicating a future fall in exports. Marcus Baker, global head of marine and cargo at insurance broker Marsh McLennan in London, said war risk insurance for shipowners that did business in areas like the Persian Gulf had risen about 60% since the conflict started last week. Before, rates had been at modest levels. 'People are just a little bit nervous,' Baker said. Freight rates on large tankers from the Gulf to China have also risen about 50%, Kpler reported. So far, these added costs are not enough to deter shipping by themselves, Baker said, but there are increasing concerns about the welfare of ships' crews, who have been under stress from conflicts and other disruption in this decade, including monumental port delays during the pandemic. 'Crew welfare, crew safety, mental health of crew has become a big issue in the last few years,' he said. Shipping experts also report an increase in interference in the area with the satellite navigation systems used by ships to report their positions. This jamming, which has been unusually intense, is potentially dangerous because it can cause ships to appear in false locations on tracking systems and make it more difficult for owners to follow them. This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025

Yahoo

an hour ago

• Yahoo

Iran's nuclear programme: from its origins to today's dispute

A week ago, Israel launched an unprecedented attack against Iran, saying the country was on the verge of developing a nuclear weapon, a claim Tehran has always denied. Western powers have repeatedly expressed concerns about the rapid expansion of Iran's nuclear programme, questioning in particular the country's accelerated uranium enrichment. The following is a recap of the main developments regarding Iran's nuclear programme, as European foreign ministers are holding nuclear talks with their Iranian counterpart in Switzerland on Friday. - 'Structured programme' - Iran laid the foundation for its nuclear programme in the late 1950s with technical assistance from the United States, when Iran's ruling shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, signed a civilian nuclear cooperation agreement with the US. In 1970, Iran ratified the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), committing it to declare its nuclear material to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). But revelations in the early 2000s about undeclared nuclear sites raised concerns. An 2011 IAEA report, collating "broadly credible" intelligence, said that at least until 2003 Iran "carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device". - Historic accord left in tatters - After suspending enrichment activities, Iran began talks with European and then international powers that would later culminate in a historic deal. On July 14, 2015, Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States -- plus Germany reached an accord in Vienna. The deal, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), placed significant restrictions on Iran's nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief after 12 years of crisis and 21 months of protracted negotiations. But the hard-won deal began to unravel when the US under President Donald Trump walked away from it on May 8, 2018, and reimposed sanctions on Iran. - 'Nuclear escalation' - Following the US withdrawal, Iran retaliated by stepping up its nuclear activities as if "a red cape had been waved in front of a bull," said Clement Therme, associate researcher at the Rasanah International Institute for Iranian Studies. According to Therme, Iran "embarked on a strategy of escalation" in a bid to up pressure and obtain help to circumvent sanctions. But Tehran's moves were unsuccessful and came at an "exorbitant economic cost". Iran first began enriching uranium to five percent -- breaching the limit of 3.67 percent imposed by the deal -- before it raised the enrichment levels to 20 and then to 60 percent in 2021, which is a short step from the 90 percent required for use in a weapon. Iran has also increased its stockpiles of enriched uranium, which was set at 202.8 kilogrammes under the deal. Iran's total enriched uranium stockpile is currently believed to be more than 45 times that limit. And Tehran has since exceeded the number of centrifuges -- the machines used to enrich uranium -- it is allowed to have while beginning to produce more material faster by using advanced models at its plants. Efforts to revive the deal have been fruitless so far, with European-led talks on hold since summer 2022. After Trump's return to the White House, talks between Washington and Iran and mediated by Oman resumed in April. While the US president has voiced confidence that Iran would eventually sign a nuclear deal, Tehran has said that Israeli strikes that targeted a slew of military and nuclear sites "dealt a blow" to diplomacy. - 'No indication' - Faced with Iran's rapidly expanding nuclear programme, the IAEA expressed "serious concern" in its latest quarterly report at the end of May. According to the UN agency, Iran is the only non-nuclear weapon state to enrich uranium to 60 percent. It theoretically has enough near-weapons-grade material, if further refined, for more than nine bombs. However, the manufacturing and delivering of a nuclear bomb requires many other steps, including mastering both ballistics and the miniaturisation of the nuclear charge. The IAEA has said it currently has "no indication" of the existence of a "systematic programme" in Iran to produce a nuclear weapon. US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified to a Senate committee in March that Iran was not actively building a nuclear bomb. Iran has always denied having such ambitions, regularly referring to a long-standing fatwa, or religious edict, by Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei prohibiting atomic weapons. bur-anb/kym/gv

Hamilton Spectator

2 hours ago

• Hamilton Spectator

The Latest: 2nd week of Israel-Iran war starts with renewed strikes

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — The second week of the Israel-Iran war started with a renewed round of strikes despite talks between European ministers and Iran's top diplomat. Friday's talks, which aimed at de-escalating the fighting between the two adversaries, lasted for four hours in Geneva, but failed to produce a breakthrough. Meanwhile, U.S. President Donald Trump continued to weigh his country's military involvement and concerns spiked over potential strikes on nuclear reactors. Still, European officials expressed hope for future negotiations. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said he was open to further dialogue but stressed Tehran wasn't interested in negotiating with the U.S. while Israel continued attacking. Here is the latest: Tehran vows to make Grossi 'pay' A senior adviser for Iran's Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, vowed in a social media post Saturday to make the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency 'pay' once the war with Israel is over. Ali Larijani's threat comes as IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi has become a major target for many Iranian officials who say his conflicting statements about the status of Iran's nuclear program incited the Israeli surprise attack last week. Grossi told the United Nations' Security Council Friday that while Iran has the material to build a nuclear bomb, it appears they have no plans to do so. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .