Report Sees Utility in U.S., Not Israeli, Military Strike Against Iran

'After discussing these issues, the president and prime ministerâ??s advisers suggest that a U.S.-led strike is preferable from a military perspective, since it would produce affirmative answers to more of the above questions than would an Israeli attack. Yet determining which country should strike extends far beyond military capabilities. Attacking Iranâ??s nuclear facilities is but a tactical step toward strategic goal of permanently halting the regimeâ??s drive toward nuclear weapons. Mechanically damaging the program is not an end goal in itself, since no amount of bombs can destroy Iranâ??s nuclear know-how. Any strike must necessarily be followed by negotiations and a self-enforcing diplomatic deal that prevents Tehran from reconstituting the program or achieving breakout capability in the future.

Accordingly, the advisers point out that the operational benefits of a U.S.-led attack must be weighed against the post-strike political and military implications. In particular, a U.S. strike could limit Washingtonâ??s ability to negotiate with Iranâ??s leaders, who would not want to be seen as having been coerced by the â??Great Satan.â? Preserving the U.S. negotiating role is crucial. An Israeli attack may have a better chance of meeting that goal, but it would almost certainly not enjoy the same international support as a U.S. strike. regime of export controls and sanctions that President Obama has so carefully cobbled together. And without strict sanctions in place to prevent Iran from reimporting nuclear material, it may be a matter of years before the regime reconstitutes the programâ??this time entirely bunkered underground to protect against future strikes.

'