US Can Hinder or Stop an Israeli Attack on Iran by Withholding Critical Munitions

A refusal to sell Jerusalem what it deems necessary for its national security would lead to a major crisis in relations

As Iran’s nuclear program gallops forward and talks in Vienna flounder, the US refused an Israeli request to expedite the supply of two Boeing KC-46 tanker planes, vital to an attack on Tehran’s nuclear facilities. Israel has clearly stated it will not be beholden to any agreement with Iran it isn’t a party to. If it won’t be satisfied that Iran isn’t on the path to nuclear armament, it will attack its program, as it has done in the past.

Yet an effective attack would be a supremely complex operation. Beyond the usual difficulties of aerial warfare and intelligence gathering, Iran is simply further away than Israel’s “regular” rivals, and its facilities are reportedly better protected. Some are deep underground.

To achieve its goal of halting the Iranian program, therefore, Israel requires special military equipment, and it has turned to its American ally for assistance. It isn’t yet clear, however, whether the Biden Administration will agree to enable an Israeli attack. The aforementioned refusal hints to the contrary.

Dr. Ehud Eilam, an expert on Israeli national security, told The Media Line that to carry out an effective attack, Israel needs “bunker-busting mega-bombs, a large bomber like the B-52 to carry those bombs [and] new fueling planes, considering the large distance between Iran and Israel.”

Eilam believes Israel would be able to carry out an attack even if the US doesn’t supply the necessary equipment, “but it would be more difficult and lower the chances of success.” He suggests that as a possible workaround, Israeli jets may be allowed to land secretly in an Arab state to refuel on the way to the targets. Israel’s advanced arms manufacturers, in turn, could supply it with the special bombs required.

At present, the White House is holding on to its commitment to secure a diplomatic solution by reviving the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The US has asked Israel not to surprise it with action against Iran.

Former President Donald Trump left the agreement in 2018 and reinstated heavy sanctions on Tehran. In response, the Islamic Republic rushed its nuclear program forward, and widely out of compliance with the JCPOA. While Tehran insists that its program doesn’t have military goals, experts say that some of its advances are hard to explain otherwise.

President Joe Biden promised to resuscitate the agreement, left in a state of collapse by Iran and the US.

Most recently, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last week, “We continue at this hour, on this day to pursue diplomacy because it remains at this moment the best option.”

Iranian recalcitrance in Vienna is, however, putting US and European patience to the test, and Blinken continued by saying, “We are actively engaging with allies and partners on alternatives.”

After a five-month hiatus during which a hard-line president was inaugurated in Tehran, talks in Vienna resumed last week, but Western representatives have called the current Iranian demands “not serious.”

Iran is demanding, among other things, that the White House guarantee that future administrations will not withdraw from the agreement, a demand Biden cannot satisfy, even if he so wished. These demands have caused the parties to doubt Iran’s motives in negotiating.

State Department spokesperson Ned Price said in a press briefing last Thursday, “Iran’s escalations of its nuclear activities, the intransigence that it has shown, including most recently in Vienna last week, it will put to the test whether diplomacy can be able to achieve that mutual return to compliance. You’ve heard from the secretary, you’ve heard from President Biden, that regardless of how we get there, the United States is committed to the fact that Iran must never be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. That is a commitment that we subscribe to and we always will subscribe to.

“So again, I wouldn’t want to speak to contingency planning. I wouldn’t want to speak to what we might be contemplating if diplomacy – if the path to diplomacy toward a mutual return to compliance isn’t viable in the near term. But we are discussing those alternatives,” Price said.

Israel isn’t reassured though, and fears of a “less for less” agreement that would see partial sanctions relief for Iran, and partial compliance vis-à-vis its nuclear program, are fueling its urgent insistence that sanctions not be lifted without a full agreement in place. Israeli officials of the highest level, including Prime Minister Naftali Bennett and Foreign Minister Yair Lapid, have warned the US against this. Israeli wariness of the American position has also reportedly pushed its preparations for an attack on Iran into overdrive.

Prof. Eytan Gilboa, an expert on Israel-US relations and a senior fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, believes, however, that an Israeli attack will not be able to move forward against US wishes.

“The US can certainly stop Israel from carrying out a military operation and it has done so in the past,” Gilboa told The Media Line.

In 2012-2013, Gilboa said, Israel was seriously preparing to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, and it was the US that pressured then- Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to shelve the plan.

Gilboa explained that there are two considerations that inform the American position on an Israeli attack. “Firstly, the Americans believe that Israel cannot carry out such a move by itself, it simply isn’t powerful enough,” he said, “the second point is that if Israel will do it alone, the US will be involved, meaning that the Iranians will attack American targets and American allies in the Gulf. How do they [the Americans] know this? Because they [the Iranians] have said so.” Such an eventuality, Gilboa said, is something the US wishes to avoid. “They don’t want to have to deal with another war in the Middle East now.”

Israel, however, perceives a nuclear Iran as an existential threat. Therefore, said Gilboa, the danger it sees ahead of it is that talks in Vienna will fail, “there won’t be an agreement and nothing will be done [against Tehran’s nuclear ambitions], or that an agreement will be reached, but will be the opposite of what’s needed,” such as a “less for less” deal.

An understanding that international legitimacy for an attack would plummet once an agreement is settled augments Israeli worry about a bad deal. This would not be disconnected from the American stance, which would likely be in strong opposition to Israeli action. In such a scenario, Gilboa said, “the Americans will use whatever points of pressure they have to stop a military operation.” This could include a refusal to arm Israel, which, Gilboa said, “no doubt will lead to a serious crisis.”

With myriad factors involved in the matter, Gilboa stresses that it is impossible to speak of certainties when looking ahead. At the same time, he cautiously said, “I believe that if the American opposition will be strong enough, Israel will not be able to act militarily.”

Eilam said, “The Biden Administration is opposed to an attack, certainly an American but also an Israeli [one]. If talks with Iran reach a dead end, it [the administration] will likely resort to sanctions, and will at most try to pressure Iran into concessions with a vague threat of an Israeli attack.” The White House will also, “most likely,” refuse to supply Israel with the needed equipment, Eilam believes.

Despite US opposition, “Israel will try and prepare independently for an attack,” he said, which can be expected to lead to tension between the allies. Israel should deeply consider whether it has no other option in such a situation, however, not least because of the crisis it would cause between the allies, Eilam cautioned.