The Nuclear Option is on the Table

The Obama administration's soft approach to Iran's nuclear program may have done more than simply making a conventional strike more likely.

Contact Editor
Dr. Joseph Frager,

Dr. Joe Frager
Dr. Joe Frager
Courtesy of Dr. Frager

President Obama has had a constant refrain when it comes to Iran - "I'm keeping all options on the table".

The likelihood of President Obama using any kind of military force against Iran is extremely slim. It has become even less likely now that an "interim agreement" which many consider on both sides of the aisle to be a sham has been signed.

Israeli leaders, however, have made it perfectly clear that they will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear bomb. The Israeli efforts have been stymied by President Obama who has refused to send Israel vital Bunker Buster Bombs. The Iranians have hardened their nuclear facilities anticipating a military strike making the situation more complex and challenging.

In military circles both inside an outside of Israel the price of a military strike on Iran has been debated. Some have warned that the retaliation by Iran's proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas will be too high a price to pay. Hezbollah now has more sophisticated missiles than heretofore that can reach Tel Aviv. These factors have delayed an Israeli attack thus far.

Israel's back is, however, soon to be against the proverbial "wall". No nation has the patience of Israel. No nation wants Peace more than Israel. And no nation when it comes to its back being pushed against the wall will more likely strike than Israel. This is how it has been able to survive.

The President by signing an interim agreement that is at best a "bad agreement" and at worst a total capitulation to the Mullahs has boxed Israel into a tight corner.

Senator Ted Cruz of Texas said point blank on Feb. 6th at the EMPact America Conference held at the Reserve Officers Association in Washington D.C. that this agreement has increased the chances of a military strike against Iran. Now comes the big question. If a conventional military strike cannot destroy the embedded Iranian Nuclear reactors and stockpile, especially since Israel does not have the necessary Bunker Busters to do the job, will Israel then go to the nuclear option?

Had the President given Israel the Bunker Busters and the necessary assurances that it needs to defend itself against a prolonged conflict and retaliation by Hezbollah, I would not be raising the dreaded spectre of a nuclear attack against Iran. However, given the current existential nature to the Iranian threat, the likelihood of a nuclear strike by Israel on Iran's nuclear facilities has increased immensely.

Let us all hope that the President will reverse course and provide Israel with everything it needs for a conventional strike on Iran. Otherwise, barring a revolution in Iran, Israel will have no other option but to use its nuclear arsenal.