The British newspaper Financial Times recently published a compelling report on the possibility of Israel’s military targeting Iranian nuclear facilities.
The report questions whether Israel can strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure without U.S. assistance.
It ruled out Israel’s ability to eliminate Iran’s nuclear projects without American backing, citing several key reasons.
Below is the full details of the report:
When U.S. President Joe Biden was asked whether he would support Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, his answer was clear: “The answer is no.”
Nevertheless, some hardline figures in Israel are debating whether the Israeli Air Force should carry out such a strike in response to the 180 ballistic missiles Tehran fired at Israel this week.
However, without U.S. support, a solo Israeli airstrike on Iran’s nuclear sites would be highly risky and would likely delay, rather than destroy, Iran’s nuclear program, according to analysts.
Why Would an Israeli Operation Be Challenging?
First, the distance: Over a thousand miles separate Israel from Iran’s most critical nuclear bases. To reach them, Israeli planes would have to fly through the sovereign airspace of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, and possibly Turkey.
Second, fuel: The journey to and from the targets would require Israel to use every aerial refueling capability it has, leaving little to no room for error, according to a report by the U.S. Congressional Research Service.
Third, Iranian air defense: Iran’s key nuclear sites are heavily fortified, and Israeli bombers would need protection from fighter jets. This would require a strike group of around 100 aircraft, according to the research service’s report.
Are the Nuclear Facilities Well-Protected?
Destroying Iran’s two main uranium enrichment facilities would be Israel’s biggest challenge. The fuel enrichment plant at Natanz is deeply underground, while the larger facility at Fordow is buried inside a mountain.
Destroying these facilities requires weapons capable of penetrating several meters of rock and reinforced concrete before exploding.
Israel does possess bunker-busting bombs, such as the GBU-31 bombs it used last week on four buildings in Beirut to kill Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. However, Israeli reports indicate that 80 bombs were used in that strike, and a similar attack would likely fail to destroy Iran’s more fortified nuclear facilities.
Analysts suggest there is only one conventional weapon capable of the task: the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP).
This precision-guided giant bomb is about six meters long and weighs 30,000 pounds. It can penetrate 60 meters of earth before detonating.
Has Israel Developed Its Own Bunker-Buster Bombs?
It remains unclear whether Israel has this capability. Some former U.S. policymakers have repeatedly suggested that Washington should provide Israel with these bombs. However, Ehud Eilam, a former researcher at Israel’s Ministry of Defense, says that even if Israel acquired the MOP, its F-15, F-16, and F-35 fighters wouldn’t be able to carry it. Moreover, he added, there is “no chance” that Israel could purchase an American B-2 Spirit strategic bomber, which is needed to deploy such a bomb.
Israel could instead use a C-130J Hercules to transport the MOP through its cargo doors, a highly inefficient method known as “ramp drop.” But the MOP is not designed for this type of delivery.
Does Israel Have Other Options?
Israeli jets could disrupt nuclear sites by bombing their air vents and supporting infrastructure. This might hinder the precision needed for centrifuges used to enrich uranium to function properly, though it wouldn’t destroy them.
Sabotage is the last option. In 2021, Natanz’s internal power system, which powers its underground centrifuges, experienced an outage believed to have been caused by a planned explosion. In 2010, the U.S. and Israel were said to have halted Iran’s nuclear program using the Stuxnet virus. However, these attacks have failed to halt the program permanently.
Ultimately, the level of force required to inflict serious damage on Iran’s key facilities “would necessitate broad U.S. support, if not direct intervention,” as noted by Daria Dolzikova and Matthew Saville of the Royal United Services Institute in a recent paper. Even that would not guarantee “total destruction.”
