by MAAYAN HOFFMAN

The Media Line

An independent Israeli operation to bring down the Shia axis would be complicated and risky. The only reason Israel would attack Iran before Trump takes office is if it knows that in the next week, Iran will become nuclear

With just one week until President-elect Donald Trump takes office and President Joe Biden concludes his term as a lame duck, the stage could be set for a bold move against Iran. However, most experts agree that any such action should wait until after January 20—unless an urgent situation demands otherwise.

“I think it would be a mistake [for Israel] to attack Iran without coordinating with the United States of America,” Major General (ret.) Yaakov Amidror told The Media Line. “I am not stating that we need approval from America—we can do it without their approval. I am not saying we should do it with them—we can do it ourselves. But it would be a big mistake not to coordinate,” Amidror added.

Amidror warned that any Israeli attack against Iran could provoke a strong retaliation from the regime, potentially targeting Israel or one of its allies, which could necessitate American support or intervention. Such support might not be readily available without prior coordination and with the US administration in transition.

He also highlighted that Israel would likely require specialized munitions from the US to execute a strike effectively.

Iran has two known nuclear facilities: Natanz and Fordow. Natanz includes a large underground complex housing approximately 50,000 centrifuges and a smaller, ground-level facility. According to British academic and scientist James Acton, who spoke to The Media Line in a prior interview, the Natanz underground facility is estimated to be no deeper than around 33 feet (10 meters). In contrast, the Fordow facility is buried within a mountain and is believed to be around 197 to 262 feet (60 to 80 meters) underground.

This disparity poses significant challenges. Considerable evidence suggests that Israel cannot currently destroy Fordow. Acton explained that Israel would need the US-developed Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) for such a mission. However, even if the US were willing to supply this weapon, deploying it without US assistance would neither be easy nor practical.

The MOP, over 20 feet (6 meters) long, is far more extensive than conventional bunker busters and can penetrate deeper than any alternative.

As such, Brigadier General (Res.) Amir Avivi noted that the “right and best scenario” would involve a joint Israel-US attack. However, he stressed that such coordination could only occur after Trump assumes office.

“The only reason Israel would attack Iran before Trump takes office is if it knows that in the next week, Iran is becoming nuclear,” Avivi told The Media Line. “Otherwise, it does not make sense.”

Avivi outlined an ideal approach: the US leading a massive, short-term strike targeting not only Iran’s nuclear facilities but also its ballistic missile and weapons factories.

“The right way to do it is a short, pinpointed, two- or three-day massive strike that will bring down the Shia axis,” Avivi said. He emphasized that an independent Israeli operation would be “more complicated” and could take months to achieve.

However, that does not mean no action should be taken, said Middle East analyst Yoni Ben-Menachem.

He explained that if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu committed to Trump not to attack Iranian nuclear facilities before the inauguration, it should not preclude Israel from targeting Iran’s oil infrastructure. Ben-Menachem suggested that if the Houthis, an Iranian proxy, continue to bombard Israel with rockets, the country should retaliate by striking Iran’s oil industry. Such a move, he argued, could destabilize the regime and potentially lead to its downfall.

“As soon as there is a Houthi attack on Israel with drones or missiles, we should attack,” Ben-Menachem told The Media Line. “This would put an end to the Houthis’ attacks.”

It is also unclear whether Trump will support an attack on Iran once he takes office.

In recent weeks, leading up to the inauguration, he has encouraged Israel to confront the regime. However, the situation may change after he assumes office.

In October, following an Iranian missile attack on Israel, Trump stated that Israel should strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. However, Major General (ret.) Amidror urged caution, noting that it is premature to predict Trump’s decisions in office.

“With all due respect to all the words Trump is saying, the American administration has to settle down and understand the nuances of the situation before it makes such a decision,” Amidror said, adding that this is not a decision one makes hastily.

Ben-Menachem also pointed to reports suggesting that Trump may attempt to negotiate a new deal with Iran before considering military action. Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, and Trump have expressed willingness to discuss a nuclear agreement. In addition, Trump’s nominated National Security Advisor, Michael Waltz, indicated a focus on Iran but hinted at sanctions rather than military action.

“Maximum pressure, not only will it help stability in the Middle East, but it’ll help stability in the Russia-Ukraine theater as well, as Iran provides ballistic missiles and literally thousands and thousands of drones that are going into that theater,” Waltz told CNBC in November.

Another factor remains on the table: President Biden.

With just one week left in office and a foreign policy legacy marked by two major wars, could Biden, who has reportedly been briefed on the possibility of attacking Iran in the coming days, make a last-minute decision to act?

Avivi suggested that only two potential actions could change Biden’s foreign policy narrative: securing a hostage deal or launching an attack on Iran. The former appears unlikely, as Hamas has refused to close a deal thus far. As for the latter, Avivi said that any meaningful action would likely have needed to occur weeks or even a month ago.

“Biden has one chance to really make a difference, to do something impactful,” Avivi said. “However, I don’t think it would be customary to start a campaign like that a few days before another president takes office.”