Should the US Join Israel in Attacking Iran?
I weigh the arguments and the case for US involvement is surprisingly strong.
If you are a free subscriber and you like what you’re reading, maybe it’s time to upgrade to a paid subscription.
This newsletter is 100% reader-supported, and your subscription helps me continue publishing.
When you become a paid subscriber, you receive access to all my posts, the ability to comment on posts and engage in the Truth and Consequences community, and, above all, you get the warm and fuzzy feeling that comes with supporting independent journalism.
If you’re enjoying Truth and Consequences and find my work valuable, informative, and entertaining, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Should We Or Shouldn’t We?
The chances that the US might join Israel in seeking to destroy Iran’s nuclear program are steadily increasing.
Five days after Israel launched its attack, Mr. Trump’s posture continues to gyrate. The administration at first distanced itself from the strikes, then grew more publicly supportive as Israel’s initial military success became evident.
Now Mr. Trump is seriously considering sending American aircraft in to help refuel Israeli combat jets and to try to take out Iran’s deep-underground nuclear site at Fordo with 30,000-pound bombs.
Why has Trump shifted his position? He wants to share in the glow for what, so far, appears to have been a remarkably successful Israeli military operation.
When he woke on Friday morning, his favorite TV channel, Fox News, was broadcasting wall-to-wall imagery of what it was portraying as Israel’s military genius. And Mr. Trump could not resist claiming some credit for himself.
In phone calls with reporters, Mr. Trump began hinting that he had played a bigger behind-the-scenes role in the war than people realized. Privately, he told some confidants that he was now leaning toward a more serious escalation.
Indeed, on social media, Trump is already taking credit for the military operation (notice the “we”).
With that in mind, I feel compelled to engage in a thought experiment (not an endorsement). Should the US join Israel and attack Iran?
Consider these points:
Israel has gained near-complete air superiority over Iran. That means that Israeli aircraft — and potentially US aircraft — can likely operate with impunity over the skies of Iran.
Iran’s retaliatory strikes into Israel, though damaging, look increasingly ineffectual. With Hezbollah sitting this one out — and Hamas unable to play any meaningful assistance role (i.e., firing rockets into Israel) — Israel faces little serious threat to the homeland. If the US were to get involved, it’s unclear if Iran could retaliate against American military targets in any meaningful way.
Iran is completely isolated diplomatically. While Europe and Iran’s Middle Eastern neighbors have criticized the Israeli attack, there doesn’t seem to be much discussion about a UN Security Council resolution condemning the attacks. Beyond the public tsk-tsking, I’d imagine that most world leaders are privately cheering on the Israelis and hope that they are successful in destroying Iran’s nuclear program.
It appears Israel has already done damage to Iran’s nuclear program and, with air superiority over the skies of Iran, can do far more. However, Israel lacks the military hardware to attack Iran’s underground nuclear site at Fordo. Only the US has the weapons (bunker-busting bombs) and the planes to carry them (B-2 bombers). With that weaponry, Israel and the United States could do long-term, perhaps even permanent, damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
A sustained US/Israel attack on Fordo could set the Iran nuclear program so far back that it will be extraordinarily challenging for Iran to rebuild it any time soon. Indeed, if the US doesn’t get involved and Fordo remains unscathed, how will it look if 6 months or a year from now Iran is back to enriching uranium at the same plant that the US refused to help the Israelis attack in June 2025?
So what’s the argument against a US attack?
“You can’t weaken a nuclear program by bombing it, and a diplomatic agreement would be a better long-term solution.”
I find this a persuasive argument, but it’s far from clear that Iran, even now, is willing to fully give up enrichment. Moreover, considering that Iran has cheated on nuclear agreements in the past, why take an uncertain deal when the path is open to seriously degrade the country’s nuclear infrastructure? Israel and the US have the chance right now to roll the clock back for years on Tehran’s nuclear aspirations. Why not take that opportunity?
There is an argument that Trump is rattling sabers right now and threatening US engagement because he thinks it will give him leverage in diplomatic talks with Iran. But why go down that road again when the path to doing severe, perhaps permanent damage to Iran’s nuclear program exists?
“Iran will want nuclear weapons even more, because it’s the only protection against foreign attack.”
Perhaps, but there will be a massive gap between intentions and capabilities. Just because the mullahs want to go back to enriching uranium doesn’t mean they’ll be able to do that. Moreover, with their air defenses severely weakened by Israel’s attacks — and the continuing pressure of US sanctions — there’s reason to be skeptical that Iran can both rebuild their nuclear infrastructure while also reestablishing the kind of air deterrent that would allow them to protect it.
“If the US gets involved, they will have been dragged into a major conflict by a much smaller ally.”
I actually find this argument persuasive because it would mean that Israel pulled the US into a war, fully aware of the fact that they couldn’t pull off this operation on their own. That’s not a great look for the world’s superpower. But at the same time, so what? If the end goal furthers both US and Israeli interests, does it ultimately matter if Israel took the first step or how the US got involved?
“US involvement could lead to mission creep and unexpected contingencies.”
This is always a concern when the US — or any country — uses military force. But I struggle to see what those unexpected contingencies might be. Yes, Iran could lob missiles at US bases in the Persian Gulf. They could also launch drone strikes against Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, driving up the price of oil. However, there is a significant downside to that strategy — the US could go from attacking Fodrow to hitting regime targets, like the country’s economic infrastructure, its oil facilities, or even attacking the Supreme Leader. Iran has zero leverage and no diplomatic support. Escalating the war would hardly be a smart approach, particularly if the mullahs want to stay in power.
Another oft-stated fear is that Israel’s real goal in this war is regime change in Tehran. Could the US be dragged into a much more significant conflict, including the entry of Israeli and US ground troops? I don’t find this argument compelling. Israel is highly unlikely to put significant troops on the ground in Iran (logistically, it would be incredibly tough), beyond maybe some special forces units. The same goes for the United States. Perhaps the US should make clear to Israel that if they go in, regime change is off the table, and the mission should discreetly focus on destroying Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, and no more.
Indeed, one of the stronger arguments for US involvement is that since Israel desperately needs the US to help it destroy Fodrow, the US would have enormous leverage over the further trajectory of the operation. They can tell the Israelis, “we’ll help destroy Fodrow,” but no attacks on the Supreme Leader, no regime change, and the mission ends with the destruction of Fodrow.
“If the US goes forward in attacking, it means relying on the strategic acumen and impulse control of Donald Trump.”
To me, this is the strongest argument against the US striking Iran, and it is the one that gives me the greatest pause. The people in charge of American foreign policy right now couldn’t strategize their way out of a paper bag. Having said that, if there is one defining characteristic of Donald Trump’s foreign policy thinking, it’s that he’s basically a wimp and is completely afraid of prolonged US military engagement. That is a good thing and could balance his strategic ineptitude. As much as it puts me in a cold sweat to think of Donald Trump in charge of a military conflict, this situation feels like the exception to the rule.
Where I Come Down
When I began this thought experiment, I wasn’t sure where it would lead. But when you stack up the arguments against US involvement, they are surprisingly weak, and the case for joining Israel in attacking Iran is quite strong. The bottom line here is that Iran is in an exceptionally weak position. They’ve lost air superiority over their own country, and their retaliatory capabilities appear unexpectedly weak. They have no regional allies, no real friends further afield, and while not everyone will say it publicly, no one wants them to get a nuclear weapon.
This situation is not like 2003 and the US decision to invade and occupy Iraq. The risks of US involvement are exceedingly low, and the benefits are quite high. The world has been dealing with Iran’s nuclear aspirations for two decades. In a way that I don’t think anyone fully expected, the stars have aligned to give the US and Israel a reasonable chance to solve this problem once and for all. If the US doesn’t act now, it might blow the opportunity to ensure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear bomb.
To be sure, if the US decides to enter the war, it needs to make clear to Israel that this will be a limited operation, focused on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Regime change must be off the table. Frankly, if the US were thinking creatively, it would condition its involvement on Israel ending the war in Gaza or perhaps recognizing a Palestinian state in the West Bank. After all, with Iran’s nuclear capabilities destroyed — and Tehran severely weakened — the argument against a Palestinian state gets decidedly weaker. However, I think we all know that probably won’t happen.
Nonetheless, when you balance all the different considerations, the argument for the US going to war with Israel is pretty strong.
To be sure, there’s rarely a conflict where all the indicators are glowing green. There will always be risks. It’s also possible, even likely, that I’m not taking into account all the potential unintended consequences, or I’m not giving enough weight to the reasons for the US to stay out of this fight.
Although I believe the case for US involvement is strong, I’m not endorsing it. I’d prefer to hear what others with greater expertise have to say before taking a position one way or the other. With that in mind, I’m keeping the comments open because I want to hear what people think about the arguments for or against.
Musical Interlude
The morality looks bad. The US tore up the nuclear agreement that Iran was abiding by, and now is going to bomb Iran because it's enriching uranium?
One aspect not yet covered is the unifying effect which US involvement would enormously enhance in favor of the current regime. Bad! While the theocratic government is animus to us, the Persian people are not...in fact they are our friends. Our involvement would not only alienate them, but drive them to support and strengthen their otherwise disliked government. So Michael, I vote a strong No to involvement notwithstanding the eloquent arguments you put in favor thereof.