Counting on ‘TACO’ Trump is foolhardy

Israel may have made a gross miscalculation

When a country initiates a war with a rhetorical sleight of hand or questionable circumstances (e.g., Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction), it usually spells trouble. In Israel’s case, no one doubts Iran is a malicious actor whose acquisition of nuclear weapons would pose an existential threat to its neighbors. However, Israel’s decision to dub this a “preemptive” war based on the as yet unsubstantiated claim Iran had moved to assembling a nuclear weapon may turn out to be a serious miscalculation.

A “preemptive” war or “preemptive” use of force is defined as, “a response to the anticipation of an imminent attack by the adversary, motivated by the aim of securing the military advantages of striking first.” The law of war clarifies: “If political leaders believe there is an unacceptably high probability that the adversary will attack in the short term (usually a few days or weeks), and if they strike first to gain first-mover advantages, or at least to deny those advantages to the adversary, then they are acting preemptively.” Sometimes called the Caroline test, preemptive force is justified under international law as if there is a need that is “instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation.”

It is hard to justify this as a preemptive war. Rather than let negotiations play out, Israel plunged ahead with a linguistic dodge. One can argue about the merits and wisdom of the action, but this was no preemptive strike akin to the 6-Day War, when an Arab attack on Israel was imminent.

Moreover, it is far from clear whether there was any rationale for acting now. Iran has been a year or even months from nuclear breakout for years. That alone would not explain the necessity of acting now. “Asked if something changed between the end of March and this week and if the US intel was wrong,” CNN reported, “Netanyahu said: ‘The intel we got and we shared with the United States was absolutely clear, was absolutely clear that they were working, in a secret plan to weaponize the uranium. They were marching very quickly.’”

U.S. intelligence had not reached the same conclusion. And Israel has not provided substantiation for its alarming determination that Iran was on the brink of weaponization. It was not clear, let alone “absolutely clear,” that Iran was racing to weaponization. If Netanyahu invented a pretext for breaking up negotiations (while understandably skeptical Donald Trump could successfully negotiate much of anything), his failure to obtain his stated aim of permanently ending Iran’s nuclear threat would have severe consequences for him and Israel.

Since initiating the war, its belligerent prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who seems convinced that his political future depends on perpetual war, has encountered two entirely foreseeable challenges.

First and foremost, Israel has set out to end the Iranian nuclear threat, not simply set it back. However, Israel alone almost certainly cannot carry it off, given the Fordow nuclear facility, deep underground. The New York Times reports: “There is only one weapon for the job, experts contend. It is called the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or the GBU-57, and it weighs so much — 30,000 pounds — that it can be lifted only by a B-2 bomber. Israel does not own either the weapon or the bomber needed to get it aloft and over target.” In other words, without inducing the U.S. to enter this fight, the Israelis’ own stated objective cannot be obtained.

CNN spoke with former State Department official and Middle East expert Brett McGurk:

“It comes back to one question: Fordow, Fordow, Fordow,” McGurk told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Monday.

“That is something the United States can take out. That is something the Israelis will have a lot of difficulty doing. If this ends with Fordow intact, you could actually have a worse problem,” said McGurk. “You could actually have Iran more inclined to go to a nuclear weapon and they have that infrastructure intact.”

Perhaps Netanyahu’s gamble will pay off, but the notion that he would risk civilian deaths, reveal his military’s limitations, and cast Israel as needlessly inflaming the region on the odds that Trump will acting boldly (against the wishes of Iran’s protector, Vladimir Putin) boggles the mind.

This gambit may be among the worst of Netanyahu’s many bad judgment calls. While Trump blusters (“Tehran should evacuate!” “Unconditional surrender!”), his belated decision to sign the G-7 statement urging de-escalation, his stated preference for his own masterful negotiated deal, and his MAGA isolationist supporters’ aversion to foreign wars all indicate that the chances of engaging the U.S. in another Middle East war are likely misplaced.

At most, what Israel has heard is a series of conflicting, vague statements. “President Trump has offered mixed messages since Israel launched its military campaign against Iran last week, vacillating from a hands-off approach to embracing diplomacy to at times suggesting that he was weighing further U.S. involvement,” the New York Times reported. “The contradictory comments have left a trail of confusion as Israelis, Iranians, and the broader Middle East try to understand whether the biggest conflict between Israel and Iran in history would escalate further and whether Mr. Trump, long opposed to foreign wars, would plunge the United States into one.”

While Israel’s ability to take out Iranian leadership and crush Iran’s above-ground nuclear facilities, conventional military installations, ballistic missile launchers and economic infrastructure is impressive, the longer the war continues, the more Israeli civilian casualties will mount. The vast number of missiles and drones have been shot down, but Israel’s defenses are not perfect. The longer the war continues, the more Netanyahu exposes the vulnerabilities of the Iron Dome. If Israel merely sets back but does not destroy Iran’s nuclear program, Israelis may well wonder if their sacrifices were worthwhile. And Iran may take away the lesson that it in fact needs to build up its conventional weaponry to do more damage on the next go-around.

In short, several outcomes are possible. Israel could, against all odds, somehow destroy Iran’s entire nuclear program on its own. (Although preventing it from rebuilding seems an impossibility.) Alternatively, Trump could involve the U.S., triggering a U.S.-Iran war and greatly increasing the danger to U.S. installations throughout the region. Finally, Trump could compel Israel to stop, dashing Netanyahu’s hopes of victory and leaving him with yet another inconclusive war with additional Israeli casualties.

Realistically, the only thing that would permanently remove an Iranian threat is the ever-elusive regime change—something the U.S. has shown has huge downsides and a slim chance of success.