The twelve-day Iranian-Israeli military conflict has demonstrated that no bombing campaign can completely destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. Hypothetically, this is only possible as a result of a military ground operation, which neither Israel nor the United States are ready to initiate. The only way to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem is through political and diplomatic means, writes Alexander Maryasov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Russia to Iran (2001-2005).
The Israeli attack on Iran was the most serious test of the strength of the Islamic Republic since the Iran-Iraq War. It led to significant human, material and reputational losses. Many among the Iranian military elite and the country’s leading nuclear scientists were killed. More than a thousand civilians fell victim to the bombing. A significant proportion of the country’s military-industrial and nuclear infrastructure was destroyed.
However, even with the help of the United States, Israel failed to achieve the main goals of the attack: to destroy Iran’s nuclear programme and overthrow the country’s government. While acknowledging the serious damage inflicted on the country’s nuclear facilities, Tehran has no intention of curtailing its nuclear programme and its enrichment activities, in particular.
Israel’s massive military attacks and sabotage actions by its agents, as well as a broad subversive propaganda campaign that resulted in a psychological war, not only failed to politically destabilise the country, but also united Iranians on a national and patriotic basis, and strengthened the determination of the Islamic Republic’s leadership to firmly confront external challenges.
Despite the declared and so far observed ceasefire, it is premature to talk about the end of the Iranian-Israeli confrontation. The idée fixe for Israel has been and remains the destruction of Iran’s nuclear programme, which, according to Tel Aviv, primarily serves as a means of creating nuclear weapons. When the Donald Trump administration resumed negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear programme, Israel insisted that American negotiators issue an ultimatum demanding that Iran completely cease enrichment activities. When the negotiating process began to suggest compromise solutions with the possible continuation of low-level enrichment by Tehran, Israel launched a large-scale attack on Iran. US President Trump not only knew about Tel Aviv’s plans, but also greenlighted them, believing that forceful pressure on Tehran would force it to accept Washington’s maximalist demands regarding nuclear issues.
Iran responded with sensitive missile and drone strikes, often overcoming Israel’s multi-component air defences and causing serious damage to Israel’s military-industrial infrastructure as well as residential neighbourhoods.
Despite the intensive bombing, Israel failed to cause irreparable damage to the main nuclear infrastructure facilities deep underground. The United States came to the aid of its regional ally, dropping heavy bunker buster bombs on the facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. But even these bombings, according to Iranian authorities, did not cause critical damage, since all the enriched uranium and centrifuges had been removed from the nuclear facilities in advance and dispersed to new storage locations.
US President Trump, unwilling to get involved in a military conflict with Iran, announced the “destruction” of the Iranian nuclear programme and called on Israel and Iran to observe a ceasefire. Exhausted by the 12-day war, Tel Aviv and Tehran stopped bombing one another.
Western experts and the American intelligence community claim that it will take Iran years to fully restore all components of the nuclear infrastructure. At the same time, they suspect that Tehran has or is building new undeclared nuclear facilities that will allow the country to fully restore its nuclear programme relatively quickly.
The question of the real damage done to the Iranian nuclear programme can only be clarified after an objective international investigation. This is currently difficult, since Iran has suspended cooperation with the IAEA, accusing its head Rafael Grossi of harbouring a biased attitude towards Tehran and “spying for the West.” According to the Iranian Foreign Ministry, Tehran will be ready to reconsider its decision if the Agency provides firm guarantees of the security of the Iranian nuclear programme (INP) and Iranian nuclear scientists.
Regarding President Trump’s proposal to resume nuclear negotiations, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi noted that it is impossible to trust those who, in the midst of negotiations, launch a military operation against someone with whom they want to agree. Nevertheless, Tehran will most likely resume negotiations in order to avoid a new escalation of the situation. At the same time, it will continue to defend its right to enrich uranium, even if limited, in order to save face and try to achieve the lifting of sanctions related to the INP. This is also required by the domestic political situation in Iran.
Whatever the attitude of Iranians is towards their government, the Israeli attack awakened national patriotic feelings of the majority of Iranians, who have always united in the face of external threats. At the same time, by supporting the Iranian leadership in repelling Israeli aggression, the Iranians, after the end of the critical phase of the conflict, made it clear that they expect the authorities to take active steps to resolve acute socio-economic problems and bring the country out of international isolation. The country’s leadership is being asked questions about why Iran was left defenceless in the face of Israeli aggression. Why did the protective system of regional proxy groups, the creation and strengthening of which took so much financial and material resources that could have been used to resolve internal Iranian problems, not work?
The declared ceasefire remains fragile. Both sides are using it to restore destroyed military facilities, strengthen air defence systems, and replenish their missile and drone arsenal. Israel says that, despite the ceasefire, it will prevent Iran’s efforts to restore its nuclear and missile programmes.
The experience of the twelve-day Iranian-Israeli military conflict shows that no bombing can destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure in its entirety. Hypothetically, this is only possible as a result of a ground operation, which neither Israel nor the United States are ready to commit to. The only way left to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem is through political and diplomatic means. It is necessary to agree on mutually acceptable, controlled limits on Iran’s nuclear activities, otherwise the region will face new waves of conflict and clashes with unpredictable consequences.
Views expressed are of individual Members and Contributors, rather than the Club's, unless explicitly stated otherwise.