Israel's air war against Iran last month unfolded over 12 days. Time will tell the extent to which Israeli and U.S. strikes set back Iran's nuclear program, but some have already argued that these operations were misguided because they may not have permanently destroyed Tehran's nuclear capabilities. According to RAND's Raphael Cohen, that critique misses the point.
Instead, he says, the best way to judge these actions is to consider the alternatives facing Israel and the United States. The two countries could have engaged in a longer war and pushed for regime change in Tehran, which would have been messy and unpredictable. Or they could have refrained from military action and let economic sanctions run their course, a strategy that has so far failed to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Both alternatives were undesirable, Cohen says. The remaining solution was a limited war aimed at degrading Iran's nuclear program and buying time for circumstances to change.
Limited wars rarely offer a permanent resolution, he says, but they can shift the geopolitical dynamic and even set the stage for future diplomacy. “For truly vexing national security issues,” Cohen says, “that's probably the best one can hope for.”
