President Donald Trump’s stance on the use of direct military force against Iran remains ambiguous, even as alarms are raised by security experts regarding the necessity of U.S. intervention to neutralize Iran’s nuclear threat. Following recent Israeli airstrikes targeting the Natanz nuclear facility, the U.N. has confirmed there was some “direct impact” on its underground structures; however, details about the extent of the damage are still uncertain. Notably, Israel has not attacked the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, which poses a significant nuclear threat due to its capability to produce a nuclear weapon in a matter of days. This absence of action has raised questions about Israel’s military capacity to strike such heavily fortified sites.
The Fordow facility, deeply embedded in mountain bedrock and fortified to withstand bombardment, is highlighted by experts as the most dangerous remaining nuclear site in Iran. Mark Dubowitz, a leading security analyst, underscores that only the U.S. has the requisite military capabilities to effectively dismantle this facility. The nature of the Fordow site’s construction necessitates advanced weaponry, such as the GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which is designed to penetrate deep burials. Despite its regional military strength, Israel still lacks the means to deploy such heavy munitions without U.S. assistance.
Further discussions around military capabilities highlight that while Israeli aircraft like the F-35I Adir and F-15I Ra’am can deliver substantial damage, penetrating the Fordow facility remains beyond their reach. Dubowitz’s insights indicate that the U.S. military’s full-spectrum capabilities, coupled with precision reconnaissance, would be crucial to ensure successful strikes rather than targeting decoy facilities. The perceived need for American involvement underscores a significant limitation in Israeli military operations against Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Trump has emphasized the superiority of U.S. military technology compared to Iran’s defenses, asserting that the U.S. holds “complete and total control of the skies over Iran.” His rhetoric reinforces a nationalistic view of U.S. military prowess, but the current administration remains cautious, with no clear indication whether direct military intervention is being considered. While Trump made an early exit from a G7 summit to engage with the crisis, he has steered clear of making definitive statements regarding U.S. involvement.
Amid escalating tensions, Trump warned that Iran must not acquire nuclear capabilities and suggested an increasing need for urgent action, advising those in Tehran to evacuate. This aligns with a broader U.S. strategy aimed at mitigating nuclear proliferation in Iran. However, complexities of the regional conflict may hinder a straightforward escalation to military intervention, with Trump expressing a desire for a significant resolution rather than mere ceasefires or negotiated settlements.
Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. Danny Danon reported ongoing Israeli military operations in Iran, asserting that their air force is achieving impressive results. Nonetheless, he acknowledged the comparative scale between Israel’s population and Iran’s, citing limitations in their military capacity. Danon’s comments highlight the strategic challenges Israel faces, underscoring their need for U.S. support to enhance their military effectiveness in countering an adversarial power like Iran.
