On Sunday, United States military forces bombed several nuclear and military facilities in Iran, inserting the country into the ongoing conflict between Israel and Iran. Iran fired back on Monday at U.S. military bases in Quatar and Iran.
Virginia Tech political expert Paul Avey explains how the situation has evolved and what it means for the United States.
How did the United States launch the Sunday attack?
The strikes included U.S. cruise missiles from submarines and GBU-57 (“bunker-buster”) bombs from aircraft. The bunker buster bombs targeted Natanz and Fordo. The Fordo site is an Iranian uranium-enrichment facility buried underground.
What happens next?
The United States has taken steps to increase defense of its military forces in the Middle East and organizations, like the FBI, are increasing attention on actors with suspected ties to Iran. Initial Iranian retaliation against an American base in Qatar were reportedly intercepted by air defenses. Any additional Iranian retaliation may unfold over time, making it difficult to prepare for all eventual possibilities. If the U.S. considers additional military action, there should be a vigorous public debate in the United States with Congress involved in any decisions.
What could the strikes mean for the future of U.S. and Iranian relations?
The outcome will likely depend on three factors. First, what, if anything, does Iran do in retaliation? Second, how much damage have the Israeli-U.S. strikes done to Iran’s nuclear program? We still don’t know, at least publicly, the full effects. Third, do U.S. goals remain to degrade Iran’s nuclear program, or will President Donald Trump seek regime change and Congress go along with that? If Iran continues to retaliate, Iran’s nuclear program can quickly rebuild, or the U.S. aims to expand there will be pressure for additional U.S. military action which could lead to a spiral of hostilities.
On the other hand, if Iran’s response is muted and it signals a desire to negotiate, U.S. leaders can assess the damage to Iran’s program as meeting their goals. If U.S. aims don’t expand, then mutual animosity will continue but there’s space to avoid a bigger fight.
What does the attack mean for Israel?
It supports Israel’s stated goal of its recent strikes against Iran to prevent the country from building a nuclear weapon. Israel’s military lacked the capability to significantly damage or destroy Fordo. If Iran’s nuclear program is degraded but not destroyed, then the campaign will not have achieved its primary stated purpose.
What are other important takeaways?
There’s an important distinction between having a nuclear program and having a nuclear weapon that can be used to strike a target. The most recent public U.S. intelligence assessments were that Iran had not made a political decision to build a nuclear weapon. States without a deliverable nuclear weapon are vulnerable to strikes against their nuclear program. That can then set back the physical ability to build a weapon in the future.
If the strikes only slow Iran’s progress, this could incentivize Iranian leaders to build a weapon to deter future attacks. There are two basic pathways to minimize that possibility. A diplomatic path would focus on a new agreement with robust inspections. A military path could either be continual military strikes or regime change.
The response of global actors will also play a large role in how this conflict evolves.
By Jenny Kincaid Boone