POLITICS
The United States would “willingly” take part in a military strike against Iran if negotiations fail, U.S. President Donald Trump recently told Time magazine. Signs that such an operation is already in the preparation stage are visible in the buildup of U.S. naval forces near the Persian Gulf. A limited Israeli strike without direct U.S. involvement is also possible; however, inflicting irreparable damage on Iran’s key nuclear infrastructure would be extremely difficult without American participation, as only the U.S. possesses weapons capable of targeting well-protected and deeply buried facilities. Though even in the event of a joint U.S.-Israeli operation, there is no guarantee Iran would be permanently deprived of the ability to develop a nuclear bomb.
What is this about?
According to The New York Times, the Trump administration and the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu have spent months discussing a large-scale military operation against Iran, reportedly scheduled for May 2025.
Leaks suggest that the Israeli Air Force, supported by aircraft from U.S. carrier strike groups, would aim to establish air superiority over Iran, along with electronic warfare and major cyberattacks. The plan envisions using U.S. GBU-57 bunker-busting bombs — each with a nearly three-ton warhead — to strike nuclear facilities, including those underground and reinforced with concrete.
Despite strongly worded public statements about airstrikes and renewed sanctions designed to exert “maximum pressure” on Tehran, Trump reportedly signaled to Netanyahu during a recent meeting at the White House that he prefers a diplomatic route to preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. In effect, Trump has reverted to the position of the Biden administration, which prioritized diplomacy as the main tool to contain Iran.
Meanwhile, reports indicate that in early 2025, Iran significantly increased its uranium enrichment rate, reducing the timeline for developing basic but functional nuclear weapons down to a matter of months — or even weeks, if a political decision is made.
How likely is a military operation against Iran?
The chances of a military operation taking place any earlier than mid-June 2025 are close to zero. On April 11, Trump set a 60-day window for talks on Iran’s nuclear program. However, Israel is still considering a limited military campaign in the summer or fall this year, a development which would not require high levels of U.S. involvement. In Israel, negotiations are largely seen as a way to buy time. If Israel acts alone, one possible scenario involves symbolic strikes — intended not to cause irreparable harm but to pressure Iranian leadership into real negotiations.
Within the Trump administration itself, opinions are split on whether a military solution is viable. Vice President J.D. Vance and Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff favor a diplomatic approach, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio and former National Security Advisor Michael Waltz have reportedly leaned toward a hardline military option.
On April 12, indirect talks between the U.S. and Iran began in Oman, but special envoy Witkoff followed them up by proposing terms that are considered unacceptable by Iran — namely, the complete shutdown and dismantling of its uranium enrichment capabilities.
In the meantime, there have been clear signs of U.S. military preparations.
Two U.S. carrier strike groups, led by the USS Harry S. Truman and USS Carl Vinson, are deployed in the Middle East, with over 120 combat aircraft between them. South of the Arabian Peninsula, the nuclear-powered submarine USS Georgia is present with 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles on board. This is in addition to other U.S. Navy ships stationed in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea, and Mediterranean.
Six MIM-104 Patriot missile defense batteries have been shifted from South Korea to the Middle East theater, a move requiring 73 C-17 military transport flights. Deployment of additional THAAD systems has also been approved.
Six stealth B-2 Spirit strategic bombers — each worth roughly $1 billion — have been stationed at the Diego Garcia base in the Indian Ocean, along with at least six KC-135R Stratotanker aerial refueling aircraft. The B-2 is believed to be the only aircraft capable of delivering GBU-57 bombs effectively. Half of the U.S.’s combat-ready B-2 fleet is now located within operational range of Iran.
Currently, both the carrier groups and B-2 bombers are carrying out strikes on Houthi targets in Yemen. This serves both as a show of force directed at Iran, which is seen as the Houthis’ main backer, and as training for possible action against Iran itself.
It's worth noting that even these relatively limited airstrikes on less-defended targets in Yemen have cost around $1 billion over three weeks (as of early April 2025) — and have yielded largely modest results.
What would it take to solve the “Iran nuclear problem” militarily?
According to a report by The New York Times, one option under consideration combines U.S. airstrikes with raids by Israeli special forces. However, ground operations would require extended preparation — until at least October 2025 — and would be fraught with uncertainty.
Israeli commandos would need to strike multiple targets scattered across Iran, a far harder task than their recent operations in Syria. To operate on the ground, they would first need to disable Iranian defenses, disrupt military command and control, and possibly strike political leadership centers.
Israel has already carried out two airstrikes on Iran — in April and October of 2024 — demonstrating that Iran’s air defenses are ineffective even at self-protection. Four Russian-made S-300 systems were reportedly destroyed in those attacks, leaving Iran even more exposed.
In a purely air-based campaign, bunker-busting bombs and in-air refueling capacity would be critical. Israel relies heavily on U.S. support for both.
Israel does have its own bunker-busting bombs — which were used, for example, in a successful strike on a Hezbollah meeting near Beirut that killed Hassan Nasrallah last September. However, only the American GBU-57 30,000 bunker-buster is believed to be capable of penetrating Iran’s fortified nuclear sites. Even if the U.S. agreed to provide them, Israel lacks aircraft capable of carrying the ordnance.
Estimates suggest a campaign would require several hundred combat aircraft — including bombers, fighters, and airborne early warning systems — operating over the course of several days, or even weeks. The Israeli Air Force has only six KC-707 refueling aircraft, far short of what's needed for such sustained operations.
In short, a meaningful attack against Iran would have to be far larger in scale than Israel’s previous strikes on single nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007.
Is success guaranteed?
Even with U.S. involvement, the answer is still no.
An operation against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would be extraordinarily complex. The distance from bases and carriers to targets is vast, the number of known targets is high, the sites themselves are spread across remote and mountainous areas, and many of the key facilities are located underground and are heavily fortified.
The ongoing campaign against the Houthis shows that airstrikes alone rarely produce decisive results. In Yemen, underground weapons depots hit by B-2 bombers were quickly rebuilt using newly dug tunnels. In the case of Iran, the challenge is even greater. In short, it is highly unlikely that airstrikes alone could fully eliminate the country’s nuclear infrastructure.
First, Iran’s nuclear program includes a wide range of facilities — industrial, research, and military — only some of which are publicly known or are likely known to Israeli and American intelligence. The key sites are underground, buried as deep as 100 meters. Even the GBU-57 — the most powerful U.S. bunker-busting bomb — can only penetrate to about 60 meters, meaning multiple strikes would be necessary.
Second, uranium enrichment facilities using centrifuges to produce weapons-grade material can be rebuilt relatively quickly — especially if Iran withdraws from the IAEA oversight regime and relocates operations to more concealed locations. Success for the U.S. and Israel would require a strategy of repeated, long-term strikes — what military planners refer to as “mowing the grass” — targeting such sites indefinitely. That timeframe may well extend beyond the tenure of the current U.S. administration.
Iranian officials have already threatened to disperse their enriched uranium stockpiles. When combined with even a limited number of centrifuges, this could allow Iran to maintain a nuclear fuel cycle capable of producing several warheads.
The plans reportedly being considered by the Trump administration assume that while Iran’s nuclear program may not be eliminated entirely, it could be significantly set back. However, for a guaranteed dismantling of the program, a full occupation of the country — or, at minimum, the collapse of the current regime amid a major internal crisis — would likely be required.
Is an attack on Iran inevitable?
The greatest risks surrounding a potential strike on Iran lie not only in the possibility that the country could retain its ability to develop a military nuclear program following the operation, but also that outside intervention could lead to the destabilization of the Iranian state, potentially triggering a cascade of regional crises from Afghanistan to the Gaza Strip. Some analysts believe Iran’s nuclear program has already passed the point at which the destruction of research and industrial facilities would erase the progress it has already achieved.
A separate concern involves Iran’s possible retaliation, which may not be limited to Israel alone but could affect other neighboring countries. Reuters, citing a senior Iranian official, reported that warnings had been sent to the governments of Iraq, Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Turkey, cautioning them of consequences should they assist any American or Israeli operation.
Since October 2023, Israel’s military has made significant advances along its borders, dismantling much of the deterrence architecture Iran had spent years constructing:
- The political influence and military capabilities of Hezbollah in Lebanon have been severely undermined.
- Bashar al-Assad’s pro-Iranian regime in Syria has ceased to exist.
- Militant groups in Palestine have been substantially weakened.
The final objective in this string of successes would be the elimination of Iran’s nuclear capabilities — ideally while the United States is led by a Trump administration. Without direct U.S. support, Israel is unlikely to be able to carry out such a mission successfully. But for now at least, even Trump appears committed to pursuing negotiations.