Benjamin Netanyahu is losing patience. Israel is being battered by Iran’s missiles and drones, while Israel’s defense shield is nearly depleted, and ineffective even when used. They can continue to attack Iran (although it’s often uncertain which attacks are Israeli and which American) but when it comes to Israeli airspace, they are even using anti-aircraft artillery which at least makes it appear that they are putting up a defense. This is despite the fact that Iran is apparently attacking incrementally, using its older, less advanced stocks of weapons before graduating to its latest, more advanced models, so that Israel will first use up its SAM.
In my February 11, 2026 piece, “Bibi to Don: You can’t use your nukes without starting Armageddon. But we can use ours,” I argued that Israel might preemptively strike Iran with nuclear weapons in the war that at that time had not yet begun. But it did not happen preemptively, and has not yet happened as I write, eleven days into the war. Of course, that does not mean that it will not happen at all. Alon Mizrahi believes that Iran is pursuing a strategy of patient incremental attacks on both the US and Israel (but especially the latter) in order to prevent overreaction by either of them. This would presumably include avoiding a tipping point at which Israel might be tempted to use its nuclear arsenal.
I share his Alon’s perception of Iran’s strategy, but I’m skeptical of its effectiveness in avoiding an Israeli nuclear attack. It’s a reasonable precaution, but it might nevertheless fail to dissuade Netanyahu and his most fanatical advisors. They are not interested in merely surviving the war with a damaged but still functioning Israeli state, and biding their time for another opportunity. No, they prefer to become part of Zionist hagiography like Herzl, Weizman, Ben-Gurion and Dayan, who advanced the Zionist dream in a dramatic and historically memorable ways. It’s why Iran was put on the list of countries to be disabled, as reported by retired General Wesley Clark in 2007 on the Democracy Now news hour. It’s also why they have tried to finish the job three times in the last year, and why they are unlikely to easily let go of their dream.
From their point of view, nuclear weapons are an option. It’s why the risk of the use of Israeli nukes is so high at the present time. With each passing day of the war, the stock of Israeli and US missiles and drones drops more precipitously, favoring Iran.
The option of a US ground invasion is also on the table at the present time, which may delay consideration of Israeli nukes. But how feasible is that option? Unlike the ground invasion of Iraq, which required months of logistics to put together an overwhelming force of 500,000 soldiers, such plans are only beginning to be made now. And Iraq is one fourth the size of Iran with half the population. Let us remember that even with the backing of the US, NATO and Arab oil wealth, Iraq was unable to defeat Iran in the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, a time when Iran’s revolutionary government was still in its infancy after overthrowing the shah, even though Iraq used chemical weapons, while Iran refused to do so. The chances of a US ground invasion succeeding against an Iranian ground force are doubtful in the extreme. The US failed after twenty years in Afghanistan, with a mere shadow of the military capacity of Iran. The only sensible choice for the US is the one it exercised when it failed to defeat Yemen. Just leave. If Trump is willing to swallow his pride, he might accept that solution.
The third option for the US — the use of nuclear weapons — seems unlikely. The US is a great power, and its use of nuclear weapons skirts the edges of global nuclear war. It’s not worth the risk. But Israel is hardly a great power, and might conclude that it can use its nukes without risking a wider war. Furthermore they may decide that it is the only way left to to achieve their objective.
They would probably be wrong. Even the use of nuclear weapons against Iran would not likely save Israel. By all accounts, Iran’s conventional weapons are sophisticated enough and numerous enough to cause major devastation upon Israel, and they are so deeply embedded that plenty would survive a nuclear attack on the vast Iranian homeland. But that doesn’t mean that Israel won’t resort to nukes anyway
Nevertheless, there’s still one tactic that Iran might be able to use to stop Israel. If Iran can refine enough its 460kg of 60% enriched uranium to around 90% weapons grade, and test even one nuclear device soon enough, that might be enough to end the war and prevent Israel from exercising its nuclear option. How fast can they do that? 60% enriched uranium does not require much further enrichment to reach 90%, and a ground detonation device is very simple to make. My guess is that it could be accomplished in less than two weeks.
This verifies Israel’s decades of warnings about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. The obstacle has never been technical. Rather, Iran has refused on moral and religious grounds. While I am sympathetic with the late Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s fatwa (prohibition) against nuclear weapons, possession is not the same as use. In fact, possession can hopefully even prevent use, which might be considered a decidedly moral application. It has certainly worked for countries like the DPRK (North Korea).
The new Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, will have to consider his predecessor’s fatwa in this light, and decide whether it deserves a sunset provision in the current circumstances. Either way, it will be a momentous time for him, for Iran, for Israel and for the US.
The post How Can Iran Avoid a Nuclear Strike from Israel? appeared first on Dissident Voice.
This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Paul Larudee.