As Israel’s military campaign against Iran entered its fifth day on June 17, 2023, the United States, led by President Donald Trump, confronted a significant strategic choice: Should the U.S. actively aid Israel in bombing Iran’s second-largest nuclear facility?
Israel’s airstrikes, launched on June 13, have severely impacted Iran, inflicting substantial losses on its leadership, military assets, and nuclear facilities. Analysts claim that these operations have left Iran’s Islamic government vulnerable, marking its weakest position in decades.
Previous Israeli actions had already diminished Iran’s proxies, such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
A major objective of Israel’s ongoing strikes is to diminish Iran’s nuclear capabilities. For Israel, ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear weapons is critical, as even a handful of nuclear detonations could obliterate Israel’s main population centers, given its small geographic size, comparable to New Jersey.
During the initial strikes, Israeli forces damaged the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, located roughly 200 miles south of Tehran, and disrupted its power supply. They also targeted a site in Parchin, situated about 35 miles southeast of Tehran, where nuclear weapon modeling activities were conducted.
However, experts assert that to thoroughly mitigate Iran’s nuclear potential, Israel must target the Fordo facility, which is shielded deep within the mountains, making it particularly challenging to strike. Analysts contend that Israel alone lacks the necessary capabilities to neutralize Fordo.
Achieving this goal might necessitate U.S. assistance. Israel would require advanced military technology from the U.S. to fully engage the Fordo site, including options such as carpet bombing from B-52s, employing specialized ground-penetrating bombs from B-2s, or utilizing the modified “Mother of All Bombs,” capable of being deployed from cargo planes. While these weapons might not entirely destroy structures located hundreds of meters underground, the created shock waves would surely cause significant damage.
On June 17, The New York Times highlighted President Trump’s serious consideration of deploying American military aircraft to support Israeli operations against Fordo. This includes potentially providing air refueling for Israeli jets and combating Iran’s underground nuclear site with powerful munitions, marking a stark shift from his previous aversion to military action merely a couple of months prior when a diplomatic resolution appeared feasible.
The possibility of U.S. military involvement in an offensive operation against Fordo carries far-reaching strategic and geopolitical ramifications. Engaging directly in a military action against a sovereign nation like Iran would represent a significant departure from the historical precedent set in U.S.-Israel relations.
Such operations have typically been characterized by a level of distance and plausible deniability between the U.S. and Israel. As noted by military historian Lance Janda, the U.S. has practiced a “delicate dance” with Israel for decades.
Since Israel’s establishment in 1948, the U.S. has remained a steadfast ally, providing bipartisan rhetorical support, diplomatic backing, financial aid, weaponry, intelligence, and, more recently, defense mechanisms against Iranian missile attacks targeting Israel’s urban centers.
Past collaborations between the Biden administration and Israel have aimed to mitigate Iranian assaults, especially following Israel’s military response to Hamas’ attacks on October 7, 2023. Both Trump and Biden administrations have previously taken actions against missile threats originating from Yemen, illustrating a history of U.S. military support to Israel.
For instance, Mark F. Cancian, a senior adviser with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, pointed out that while there have been many instances where the U.S. provided indirect support to Israeli military operations, he could not recall a singular instance of coordinated offensive action against a nation like Iran.
Steven Cook from the Council on Foreign Relations remarked that if the U.S. were to strike Iran directly, it would unequivocally signify American entry into the conflict.
As of 5 p.m. ET on June 17, Trump had not disclosed further details regarding U.S. military action concerning Iran and Fordo. However, earlier that day, he emphasized the U.S.’s superior military power on Truth Social, declaring, “We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran.”
He noted that while Iran had invested in good tracking and defense systems, it paled in comparison to American technology.
In a subsequent post, he stated, “We know exactly where the so-called ‘Supreme Leader’ is hiding. He is an easy target, but is safe there. We are not going to take him out (kill!), at least not for now. But we don’t want missiles shot at civilians, or American soldiers. Our patience is wearing thin. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”
Trump’s posts highlighted his warning to Iran but also signaled a more subtle implication: his repetitive use of the word “we” suggested a possible shift toward a more overt military partnership with Israel.
Such a direct U.S. military involvement in Israel’s operations against Iran would significantly alter the historical context of U.S. military policies in the region, particularly regarding Israeli military offensives.
Despite the discussions surrounding potential U.S. involvement, experts maintain that direct engagement in attacks against Iran might not provoke the anticipated backlash from neighboring Arab nations. Given that Iran is predominantly Shia, while most other regional countries are Sunni, it alters the geopolitical dynamics.
Some analysts argue that Iran’s identity as a Shia power positions it as a rival rather than a partner to many Sunni-led nations, potentially reducing regional opposition to U.S. engagement.
Nevertheless, direct U.S. involvement in an attack could pose heightened risks for American forces stationed in the region, as well as increase threats to civilian targets both in the U.S. and Europe. Barbara Slavin from the Stimson Center highlighted the unpredictable nature of warfare: “As we have so sadly learned, wars have their own logic, and once started, are very difficult to stop.”
The coming days are likely to reveal whether the U.S. will take decisive action in support of Israel against Iran’s nuclear ambitions or whether diplomacy will be deemed a more prudent path forward.
image source from：pbs
