Four years prior, a prominent figure known by Israeli and Western authorities as the “father” of Iran’s nuclear agenda was assassinated using what Iranian investigators later deemed to be a “remote-controlled weapon.”

Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, a nuclear scientist and member of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was in a vehicle traveling east of Tehran with his wife and were shadowed by bodyguards in separate cars when their car came under gunfire from a machine gun, which Iran claimed had been “operated via satellite.”

This weapon, weighing approximately a ton and smuggled into Iran in pieces, had been affixed to a seemingly abandoned Nissan pickup truck parked at a junction on the main road they were using to return from their vacation home near the Caspian Sea.

The attack was completed in under a minute, with no visible attackers at the scene. Both Fakhrizadeh’s wife and their bodyguards survived. The sniper who controlled the AI-driven machine gun and fired it was located thousands of miles away. Afterwards, the Nissan truck exploded.

At that time, Iran’s foreign minister, Javad Zarif, decried Fakhrizadeh’s assassination as an act of “state terror” by Israel, although Israel has neither confirmed nor denied its involvement.

The assassination has gained renewed significance, particularly after Israel is thought to have sabotaged and remotely detonated equipment to injure and kill numerous Hezbollah operatives supported by Iran in Lebanon. This speculation raises the issue of whether Israel intends to strike Iran’s secretive and well-guarded nuclear establishments. Israel seems prepared to retaliate against Iran for its recent missile attacks directed at Israel in early October, which itself was in response to two recent killings that Iran attributes to Israel: the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Beirut and Hamas political figure Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.

The deaths of both leaders occurred as Israel ramped up its military actions in Gaza, which had its origins in Hamas’ attacks on southern Israel on October 7, 2023. Israeli operations have now broadened to include airstrikes and a ground incursion targeting Hezbollah in Lebanon, amidst warnings from officials and specialists that a direct conflict between Iran and Israel could erupt in the Middle East a year after the events of October 7. This ground invasion was a reaction to Hezbollah’s increased missile attacks into Northern Israel from its positions in Lebanon.

“We all agree they have the right to respond, but it should be a measured response,” said President Joe Biden last week concerning Israel’s situation, following his discussions with the leaders of the Group of 7 countries regarding the imposition of new sanctions on Iran after its missile strikes on Israel. When questioned about supporting any Israeli action to target Iran’s nuclear facilities, Biden replied, “The answer is no.”

Amid escalating tensions with the United States, Israel canceled a scheduled meeting at the Pentagon involving its Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin. It is anticipated that Austin would have echoed Biden’s warnings against attacking Iranian nuclear sites.

Does Iran possess nuclear weapons?

Iran maintains that its nuclear programs are solely for peaceful purposes, primarily for energy needs, although this stance is met with widespread skepticism worldwide. Iranian officials often reference a fatwa, a religious decree from 2003 by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that forbids nuclear weapons on moral and humanitarian grounds.

However, evidence of Iran’s true intentions appears contradictory.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is the UN’s nuclear oversight body, reports that Iran has been increasing its stockpile of uranium enriched to near weapons-grade levels, against international demands. This escalation has intensified since former President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from a 2015 nuclear agreement that had placed limits on Iran’s uranium enrichment activities.

Earlier this year, Rafael Mariano Grossi, the director of the IAEA, indicated that Iran possesses sufficient enriched uranium to potentially create “multiple” nuclear bombs if it chose to pursue that path.

Israel has no uncertainty regarding Iran’s intentions in this matter.

Israeli authorities, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have long insisted that Iran is either a year away, mere months away, or even just weeks away from successfully building a nuclear weapon. They assert that Iran’s nuclear ambitions pose an intolerable threat to Israel’s existence, especially considering the repeated proclamations from Iranian leaders threatening nuclear destruction against Israel, the only Jewish state in the world.

“Israel is currently presented with its best chance in half a century to reshape the Middle East,” wrote Naftali Bennett, a former Israeli prime minister and self-identified hardline nationalist, on social media. “We must take immediate action to dismantle Iran’s nuclear initiatives and its main energy infrastructure and significantly weaken this terrorist regime.”

However, CIA Director Bill Burns stated on Monday that even though Iran has developed the “means of delivery” for a possible nuclear weapon through its missile improvements, “we do not currently see evidence that the Supreme Leader has altered the decision made in late 2003 to halt the weaponization program.”

This indicates that while Iran may have paused any explicit development of nuclear weapons since 2003, according to Burns, it has persistently been gathering the nuclear technology and know-how necessary for such a program.

How might Israel react to a ballistic missile strike from Iran?

A source familiar with ongoing discussions indicated to YSL News that Israel is currently consulting with the U.S. to explore its possible response to Iran. Several scenarios have been proposed concerning potential targets, which could include Iran’s military installations, its oil and financial infrastructure, key officials within the Iranian government, and potentially the most dangerous target: nuclear facilities.

Israel’s recent operation on September 27, which involved extensive bombing that resulted in the death of Hezbollah leader Nasrallah, may serve as a “proof of concept” for conducting similar attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites, according to a former Air Force intelligence officer.

During this operation, the Israeli air force repeatedly targeted Nasrallah’s underground hideout in Beirut with what are believed to be 2,000-pound bombs, successfully neutralizing the protective bunker.

This strategy might be applicable to Iran’s nuclear facilities, which are strategically hidden deep in the rocky desert.

However, targeting such buried installations presents a complex challenge, as explained by Scott Murray, a retired Air Force colonel with significant experience in combat operations in the Middle East.

For example, Iran’s nuclear site at Natanz appears to be just a mound of dirt, he noted.

Murray emphasized that his insights are based on personal experience rather than current intelligence assessments. He pointed out that fortified, buried targets are among the most difficult to destroy.

The approach of a 30,000-pound bomb encased in steel

The U.S. Air Force may consider using one of its largest conventional explosives for such targets. The GBU-57, known as the “Massive Ordnance Penetrator,” weighs 30,000 pounds and is encased in steel, enabling it to penetrate deep underground before detonating. In a similar manner to what occurred in Beirut, Israel would likely need to deploy repeated strikes with smaller bombs on the same coordinate. In that instance, Israeli forces successfully dropped 2,000-pound bombs multiple times into a single location, according to Murray. “The same challenges exist in Iran, and the Israelis have proven their capability,” he pointed out.

One major difference is that Israeli pilots would encounter surface-to-air missile defenses in Iran, making the mission significantly tougher.

“It will be ten times more difficult,” he noted.

Israel contemplates its options and timing

If Israel chooses to target Iran’s nuclear facilities, a move that many analysts believe is improbable, the consequences may extend beyond military aspects.

“Such actions might lead to nuclear contamination, especially since some of these sites are located close to populated areas,” warned Ali Vaez, the Iran Project Director at the Crisis Group, a research organization based in Brussels. “Moreover, it may provoke an Iranian counterattack on Dimona, raising the risk of causing an environmental disaster in Israel.”

Dimona is a nuclear facility situated in Israel’s Negev desert.

Vaez mentioned that if Israel were to launch an attack on Iran’s nuclear initiatives, it would likely compel Iran to exit the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which has been active since 1970, and hasten its pursuit of nuclear weapons, especially since its traditional and regional defense strategies have not sufficiently safeguarded its territory.

Iran has issued threats to intensify its assaults on Israel if it faces attacks, labeling its nuclear and energy facilities as “red lines,” but has not provided further details.

A simulation conducted in 2022 with 30 prominent Iran and Middle East specialists indicated that any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, regardless of its success, would likely ignite further nuclear ambitions in Iran. Furthermore, according to Wikistrat, the Israeli security consultancy that organized the simulation, such actions could also lead Iran’s regional rival, Saudi Arabia, to expedite its own nuclear program and may attract more involvement from Russia and China in Iran’s defense efforts by providing advanced military technology.

Oren Kesler, CEO of Wikistrat, expressed skepticism about Israel targeting Iran’s nuclear sites, asserting that simply dropping bombs—no matter how robust—would not dismantle those facilities. He stated that any bombing campaign would need to be supported by ground operations from special forces, which would require Israel to “redistribute its military resources” from other areas, such as Lebanon, especially as its forces are already stretched across various fronts.

Nevertheless, Kesler suggested that Israel might be contemplating other options in deciding its next steps.

“Time is the answer,” he explained.

“In the Middle East, the effects of time cannot be undervalued. Sometimes, it yields the best outcomes. Israel is unlikely to annihilate Iran’s nuclear program completely but may be able to delay it. With the passage of time, new capabilities and alliances can be formed. It’s important to consider what might happen if there were a shift in Iran’s leadership tomorrow. There’s no guarantee that Iran won’t eventually choose to move away from its current aggressive stance.”