Pro-Con: Should the U.S. allow Israel to make preemptive strikes against Iran’s missile sites?

Yes. Israel has a right to prevent its obliteration

Should the U.S. forbid Israel from attacking Iran if it feels the extremist regime in Tehran is about to obliterate it?

Of course not. We have no right to do so, and such a ban would be flatly unenforceable.

Israel’s trigger finger has good reason to be itchy. The Israelis always doubted that President Barack Obama’s deal with the mullahs would prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear breakout state, and now even that dicey deal is on the ropes.

The Trump administration has delivered a “fix or nix” ultimatum to our European partners. If they don’t work with us to close loopholes that leave Tehran a potential nuclear menace, Trump will pull out of the deal. And if they do close the loopholes, Tehran will likely walk. Either way, the threat of a nuclear Iran remains.

And Iran has done more to put the Israelis on edge. Iran has been “weaponizing” its presence in Syria, using surrogates to press the Israelis on every front.

So what happens if Israel decides to make a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities? There is no telling how violent the region might get and how far it might spread. Still, the notion of the U.S. flashing the red card to the Jewish democracy makes no sense.

For starters, Israel is anything but an irresponsible actor. The Israelis have monitored the increasing danger of nuclear attacks for decades.

Twice they have undertaken preventive strikes — once, against a suspected nuclear reactor in Syria in 2007, and once again against Iraq’s nuclear program in 1981. Israel doesn’t need a lesson from the U.S. in how to evaluate risks to its national survival.

Further, no nation has the right to constrain Israel’s inherent right of self-defense. While a preventive attack on an adversary is not considered an act of just war, a preemptive strike against an enemy, if a nation feels directly threatened, is certainly justifiable.

In addition, an unconstrained Israel is an added deterrent against Iranian aggression. Today, the regime in Tehran regards the U.S. as a faraway power that may or may not step in if they press Israel too much.

But Tehran is under no illusion that Israel will be shy or restrained in defending itself. We should keep things that way. It greatly lessens the likelihood that Iran will recklessly overstep.

The Israeli deterrent also lessens the pressure on other Arab states — the pressure to get their own nuclear weapons to protect themselves against Tehran. A strong Israel actually creates an environment that lessens the danger of regional proliferation.

No. An Israeli strike risks enlarging the war in the Middle East

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, approving a deadly airstrike in Syria on February, pointed out the limits of attacking Syrian leader Bashar Assad’s key backer: Iran. Attacking to defuse Iranian nuclear capability is the easy part; the difficulty lies in the unknown of what comes after.

Relations between the Shia Persian and the Jewish state did exist with economic and military cooperation following Israel’s independence in May 14, 1948.

Following Israel’s entry in to Lebanon’s civil war in 1982, everything changed.

The Shia theocracy gave prominence to Israel’s nemesis: Hezbollah. Since the inception of the Syrian civil war, Iran along with Hezbollah and its nexus of Shia militias in the region has secured southern Syria for Assad, obliterating his opposition, the Free Syrian Army.

Israel uncharacteristically has inched closer to Saudi Arabia, uniting against a common foe. Such alliance is like the toxic scent of what beckons inside a Pandora’s box.

Saudi Arabia is surrounded by Shia opposition forces on its borders and even in its own Eastern Province, where much of its oil riches are bound.

The unpredictable alliance of a pro-Israel American Congress is also troubling. Allowing Israel to take out Iran’s nuclear capability is a reluctant “no,” but that is only for now.

There is no doubt that Israel’s capacity to take out key Iranian nuclear installations in Natanz and Fordo is not even remotely a momentous challenge.

Given their successful air raids on Iraq in 1981, Lebanon in 2006 and Syria in 2003, followed by multiple operations in the Syrian civil war, the Israeli Air Force is in a league of its own.

In response, Iran’s limited and imprecise 1,000-mile-range ballistic missiles and their MIG-29 fighter jets, and Hamas with its Hezbollah rocket operations, are not remotely a match for Israel’s defenses.

But Iran’s strength lies in other means. A key one is shutting down the vital oil route at the Strait of Hormuz that could significantly pull the United States into the conflict and further shoot up oil prices.

Fully aware of the inept Security Council that is often sidelined in contemporary wars, Iran would still bring the matter to the U.N., making the argument that Israel’s attack is an unnecessary violation of international law.

If Iran is attacked and if there are casualties, it will only strengthen the more hawkish clerics and military generals.

That likely would unite Iranians to give the regime a free hand to expand confrontations while dangerously canceling the much accomplished 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and the west, quickening Iran’s path to possessing a real nuclear bomb. Diplomacy would not be an option in the new reality of a nuclear-armed Iran from that point on.

The broad consensus among American defense experts and their European counterparts is that the 2015 nuclear deal is in fact working.

President Hassan Rouhani’s administration has responsibly used the capital perks of this deal to bolster the Iranian economy.

Much to the frustration of pro-Rouhani factions, who see the economy faring better, they have had to yield to the opposition of the powerful clerics and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

January protests that may have been motivated by such opposition are also a reminder of the limits of Rouhani’s leadership.

Blessing Israel to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability will not settle the turmoil, but attract far darker forces.

Seven decades of interference in the Middle East has only produced the absence of efficient diplomacy and functional democracy.

Fueling the region are conflicts in Yemen, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, the awakening of Turkey, a rebellious Qatar, a weakened but active ISIS and a defiant Kurdish movement.

Has Israel considered how much Iran has its fingers in these pockets of realities? More importantly has the U.S. Congress?

This story was originally published April 5, 2018 at 3:04 PM with the headline "Pro-Con: Should the U.S. allow Israel to make preemptive strikes against Iran’s missile sites?."