Need to disable Iran’s nuclear weapons program more compelling than ever

OPINION:

Israel’s degradation of Iranian surrogates, especially Hamas and Hezbollah, makes the need to disable Iran’s nuclear weapons program more compelling than ever before.

Iran’s only remaining weapon in its long-declared goal of destroying the nation-state of the Jewish people is the nuclear arsenal it is building. It is more likely now that if Iran could build a small nuclear arsenal with a working delivery system, it would use it either as a credible deterrent threat against Israel or as a weapon of mass destruction. Nothing is more dangerous than a nuclear power that lacks conventional weapons.

Iran does not have a viable army, air force or navy. In a direct military confrontation with Israel, it would lose badly and quickly, regardless of whether the U.S. assisted Israel. That is why Iran has not attacked Israel after the Israel Defense Forces’ destruction of its air defenses in 2024. It does not want to give Israel a justification for further military action, but the mullahs have not given up on their religious dream to end the “Zionist entity” and “the small Satan.”

They and their military and intelligence wings still believe, as Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president of Iran, once put it, that Israel is “a one-bomb state” whose existence would be terminated by a single successful nuclear bomb attack. A United Nations report says Iran has enough weapons-grade uranium to produce six nuclear weapons. No Israeli defense system, no matter how sophisticated, could guarantee that a single rocket with a nuclear warhead could not make it through Israel’s amazing domes, slings and other high-tech defenses.

Regardless of the likelihood of such a military nightmare becoming a reality, Israel could never take that risk, especially after its disastrous intelligence failure of Oct. 7, 2013. Underreaction almost always causes overreaction, and Israel will not risk another more serious underreaction to a nuclear threat from Iran.

President Trump strongly believes that he can prevent a nuclear-armed Iran by diplomatic rather than military means. He believes that a stronger, longer-lasting agreement would be sufficient to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear arsenal. He has nominated Elbridge Colby to be the undersecretary of defense for policy.

Mr. Colby has said that “Washington, Tel Aviv and their associates can deter Iran from transgressing their vital interest even if Tehran gets a nuclear weapon.” It is doubtful that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agrees with that view. What we don’t know is whether the Trump administration would try to persuade Israel to forgo or postpone military action in deference to Mr. Trump’s desire to settle the matter through a deal or deterrence.

One possibility that combines Mr. Trump’s preference for a tough deal with Israel’s need to be certain that Iran gets no closer to a deliverable nuclear bomb is for Mr. Trump to offer a deal with an ultimatum. The ultimatum would be for Iran to agree to begin to dismantle its nuclear weapons program immediately, with a deadline for completion within several months. Failure to comply with that deadline completely transparently would result in a joint military action to achieve that result or, at the very least, a green light to Israel to finish the job.

The only permanent road to enduring peace throughout the Middle East would require regime change and the democratization of Iran. In the absence of an internal revolution, this would require external force, which the Trump administration seems not to support. Arab nations and Israel would welcome regime change, but it seems unlikely even in the face of strong opposition to the mullahs from the Iranian street.

Hardly anyone in the region wants to see a nuclear-armed Iran. Neither do the United States or Europe. The question is how to stop it. The status quo under which Iran will almost certainly move toward a nuclear arsenal — how quickly is uncertain — is unacceptable, especially to Israel. At the moment, Messrs. Trump and Netanyahu have no direct conflict. Both have pledged that Iran will never be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. However, they may soon disagree on the means necessary to achieve that mutually desired goal and timing.

It is unlikely that they will end up in the kind of open conflict we saw in the Oval Office between Mr. Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, but it is certainly possible that the Trump administration will try to stop Israel from attacking Iran’s nuclear sites on its preferred schedule. That would be a shame because a military attack shortly may be the surest way of bringing about enduring peace throughout the increasingly volatile and dangerous Middle East.

• Alan Dershowitz is an American lawyer and law professor known for his work in U.S. constitutional law and American criminal law. Andrew Stein, a Democrat, served as New York City Council president from 1986 to 1994.