In a New York Times article, Iran and "Israel" pundits Ronen Bergman and Patrick Kingsley discussed the prospects of the Israeli occupation launching an attack on Iran.

"Israel's" security minister alluded to the military option against Iran, even ordering forces to prepare for the option, which was a warning that "Israel" was willing to take matters into its own hands if a new nuclear agreement did not "sufficiently constrain Iran."

The authors cast doubt on this claim, as several former and current Israeli military officials and experts have said that "Israel" does not possess the ability to pull off such an assault against Iran's nuclear program; not anytime soon. In fact, such an attack would take at least two years to prepare for, if its goal was to cause significant damage to Iran's nuclear program.

A smaller, more limited strike that would cause some damage to the program may happen sooner. But the resources to damage dozens of nuclear sites, as threatened by the Israelis, is not possible at the moment, as its resources are not available.

Read more: Believing "Israel" Would Ask Before Doing

Why ramp up the threat then?

Recent discussions of this military move against Iran are part of the Israeli pressure campaign on countries negotiating with Iran to make sure they do not agree to "a bad deal."

So far, "Israel's" approach has been to curb Iran's nuclear program through a combination of aggressive diplomacy and intelligence operations (assassinations, sabotage, and cyberattacks). 

In September, the head of the Israeli armed forces, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, said large parts of a military budget increase had been allocated to preparing a strike on Iran. Early this month, the Mossad chief, David Barnea, said Israel would do “whatever it takes” to stop Iran from making a nuclear bomb.

This month, during a visit to the United States, Defense Minister Benny Gantz publicly announced that he had ordered the Israeli Army to prepare for a possible military strike on Iran.

"Israel", on the one hand, does not have the ability to launch an attack against Iran by air because it lacks the newer type of bunker-buster bombs, which would need large warplanes that it does not possess, meaning that underground nuclear sites would have to be struck for days or even weeks. It also has a shortage of refueling planes, which further complicates the matter. "Israel" has already ordered eight new Boeing refueling planes but will not receive any before late 2024.

On the other hand, the Israeli occupation would also have to "defend" itself against Iranian fighter jets, ballistic missiles, and an array of weapons that were not available in 2012 (when a strike against Iran was being seriously contemplated), not to mention the possibility of an attack from Lebanon and Gaza if the situation were to spiral out of its control.

“It is very possible that when the Israeli planes try to land back in Israel, they will find that the Iranian missiles destroyed their runways,” said Tal Inbar, an aviation expert and former head of the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies.

Red lines

There was no clear answer on what "red lines Iran must cross" in order for "Israel" to opt for a military strike against it. But an Israeli security official said it would likely be Iran enriching uranium to 90% (weapons-grade) purity. 

If that were to happen, then the occupation would have to intensify actions against Iran. Currently, Iran is enriching uranium at 60%.

Until then, it seems the Israelis do not possess the ability to launch a strike against Iran and that explains why they have been pushing the US toward a confrontation, as it is the only party capable of doing so.