Israel Attacks Iran

Last night, Israel launched a large-scale attack on Iran. There is not a lot of information about the scope of the attack at this moment. Clearly, Israel has killed a number of senior military figures as well as scientists involved in Iran's nuclear program. There are reports of military installations being hit as well. What we don't know is whether Israel has been successful in destroying the underground nuclear labs and research centers. While Israel has struck human resources, what about the physical nuclear resources? It is also not clear at this point how much of Iran's retaliatory capability has been eliminated. According to Israeli statements, the attacks will continue for several days, if not longer. The bottom line is that, at this point, it is impossible to evaluate the overall success of Israel's attack.

Another issue, however, is the extent, if any, of U.S. involvement in the attack. Almost immediately after word of the Israeli attack began to spread, Secretary of State Marco Rubio pried himself away from searching for students to deport and issued a statement stressing that the Israeli action was "unilateral" and that the U.S. was not involved. Rubio's primary goal appears to have been ensuring that the U.S. was not caught up in any Iranian retaliation. Rubio's statement acknowledged that the U.S. had been informed in advance of the attack. Many observers were skeptical that an operation of this magnitude could be possible without U.S. support. Based on my reading since the attack, I see three different theories regarding U.S. involvement.

The first possibility concerning the level of U.S. involvement in the attack that I see being promoted is similar to that Rubio first provided. In this scenario, the U.S. was an innocent bystander. Israel informed the U.S. that it was going to launch an attack, and the Americans did nothing to stop it. In the most generous version of this scenario, the U.S. officials understood Israel's rationale and, while not necessarily approving of the action, felt that they couldn't stand in Israel's way. Almost at the same time that the Israeli attack was being launched, Trump posted on his Truth Social social media network that he was committed to "a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue!". For days, Trump has been suggesting that he told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to strike before the U.S.-Iranian negotiations are complete. The next meeting to discuss a deal was scheduled for Sunday. Therefore, if this scenario is true, Netanyahu completely ignored Trump's warnings. It would suggest that Netanyahu has no fear of Trump and that, despite U.S. support for Israel, Netanyahu feels free to ignore what Trump has to say. I suspect that due to Trump's ego and unwillingness to appear weak vis-à-vis Netanyahu, Trump officials will not promote this version of events.

The second possibility being discussed is that the U.S. sees the Israeli attack as leverage to force Iran to compromise in the nuclear negotiations. In this version, the U.S. was informed of Israel's intention to attack and did nothing to stop it, not because the U.S. was powerless, but because it saw value in the attack. Carl von Clausewitz famously wrote that "War is the continuation of policy with other means." It could be, therefore, that there was coordination between the U.S. and Israel to stage the attack to maximize the political benefit. This possibility is supported by another post by Trump on Truth Social in which he says he warned Iranian officials of what was to come but they ignored him. Trump also described an escalating series of attacks that would become increasingly harsh. He practically begged the Iranians to accept a deal before things got worse. He concluded the post by writing "JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE." An hour later, Trump reinforced this message in another post, saying, "I told them what to do, but they just couldn’t get there. Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!" If Iran does return to the negotiating table with a much more compromising attitude, I suspect that this will be the scenario that Trump officials promote.

The third idea that I see being discussed is that the U.S. and Israel have been conspiring all along to attack Iran and that there was never an intention to conclude a nuclear deal. The negotiations were nothing but a charade, and the plan has always been to eliminate Iran's nuclear program by force rather than negotiations. In this version of events, Trump's statements suggesting he had warned Netanyahu not to attack were simply meant to cause the Iranians to drop their guard. All the public statements and diplomatic efforts were simply part of a grand deception meant to hide the real intentions to launch an attack. The best description of this possibility that I have seen was posted on X by a user named "zei_squirrel" who claimed last month that "everything being done by the Trump admin now to push the ‘turn on Israel/Netanyahu’ line is pure misdirection aimed at re-establishing the element of surprise ahead of the imminent attack on Iran." While this scenario is generally believable, it puts a lot of emphasis on Trump being able to play his role — something that I am not convinced is within his capacity — and is in direct contradiction to Trump's frequent claims that, as president, he would prevent wars. Regardless, if Iran continues to reject negotiations — Iranian leaders have apparently canceled Sunday's planned meeting — I suspect that this will become the official storyline among Trump officials.

Note that I haven't devoted any effort to suggesting which of the three possible explanations of U.S. involvement is true. In fact, all of them could be inaccurate or the truth may be a combination of them. Regardless, I am not sure we will ever know the truth. Instead, we will be provided various versions of the truth based on who is providing the information. These versions will likely change over time as well. Trump and his supporters clearly have no interest in the truth and will simply promote any story that benefits and glorifies him.

The more important question regarding U.S. involvement is what comes next. If Iran is able to undertake a robust retaliation, there will be an expectation that the U.S. assist in Israel's defense. Once the U.S. takes that step, it is effectively at war with Iran. Will the U.S., however, confine its involvement to defending Israel, or will it be compelled to launch its own attacks against Iran? If Iran attacks U.S. targets, I think the answer is clear: the U.S. will respond against Iran. But what happens short of that? What if Iran interferes with oil shipments in the Persian Gulf? Will the U.S. take it upon itself to protect ships carrying Kuwaiti, Saudi, Bahraini, and other oil from the Gulf states? Short of a complete Iranian capitulation, I don't see how the U.S. can stay out of this fight. If or when the U.S. gets involved, there will be considerable sentiment that the U.S. was dragged into the war by Israel. If things go bad, Trump and his supporters will be incentivized to scapegoat Israel. I would not be surprised to see a chest-thumping Trump who is claiming that the attack was planned all along to transition into being angry that his repeated warnings to Netanyahu not to attack were ignored.

Wars are unpredictable. If Iran immediately returns to the negotiating table and quickly arrives at a deal acceptable to Trump and Israel, this attack will look like an act of genius. If, on the other hand, four years from now, as a result of yesterday's attack, the U.S. is still involved in another endless Middle East war, there will be lots of blame and finger-pointing going around. It will be very hard to avoid the perception that the U.S. was dragged into the war by Israel and its U.S. supporters. Unless Iran is quickly defeated, there are going to be a number of tremendously bad international and domestic ramifications. For instance, just at the moment that Gulf oil supplies might be threatened, the Trump administration is prioritizing petroleum-based energy and actively harming renewable energy initiatives. It is notable that the same day that Trump signed a resolution barring California from mandating electric vehicles and setting tailpipe standards, he backed Israel's attack that will almost certainly lead to higher gas prices. A long-running war will be bad for Iran, obviously, but it will also be bad for Israel and bad for the United States.

Update: As expected, Iran retaliated today by firing hundreds of missiles at Israel. While many have been intercepted, several hit targets. According to Israeli reporter Barak Ravid, U.S. forces are assisting Israel to shoot down the missiles. So, it looks like the United States in is another war.