President Biden was presented with options for a potential US attack on Iran's nuclear facilities in the scenario that Tehran was deemed by the intelligence community as speeding toward a bomb.
Per a Thursday Axios report citing several insider sources, the Biden admin discussions were based on "if the Iranians move towards a nuclear weapon before Jan. 20" and came in "a meeting several weeks ago that remained secret until now."
No final decision was made, the report noted, and was not necessarily prompted by fresh or specific intelligence of a new threat, but was part of "prudent scenario planning" related to if the Islamic Republic reaches Uranium enrichment to 90% purity before Jan. 20.
Western officials have feared that due to fast-moving events in the region, most notably Hezbollah's leadership being decimated and the collapse of the Assad government, the Iranians could be desperate enough to pursue nuclear weapons in order to restore the security balance in the region, given Israel has clearly come out on top.
Interestingly, months ago when Israel and Iran conducted tit-for-tat direct strikes on each other, President Biden made it clear that the US would not back Israeli attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities.
The internal Biden White House 'scenario planning' discussions were said to have taken place about a month ago. One source tried to caution that "there are currently no active discussions inside the White House about possible military action against Iran's nuclear facilities," Axios noted.
There is an international consensus that Iran has increased its Uranium enrichment to 60%, putting it within easy striking distance of being able to develop a bomb if it wanted to.
Axios has also pointed out that "Even if Iran decided to build a bomb, it would need to develop a nuclear explosive device or warhead. Israeli intelligence believes that would take at least a year."
All of these newly revealed executive branch discussions over whether to launch a preemptive attack on Iranian nuclear sites are taking place completely outside of Congressional debate or approval.
The last several US administrations have argued that they don't need Congressional approval in launching such strikes, whether it be on Syria, Iraq, Iran, or Libya.
Trump in his first administration tried but failed to bring the troops occupying northeast Syria home, but deeper entanglement in striking Iran could surely draw these troops into a broader conflict. The Pentagon would in that case likely expand its deployed forces in the region as well.
Iran has long maintained it develops only peaceful nuclear energy, and there's little doubt that after the dramatic events that unfolded in Syria, and with Hezbollah top leadership removed by Israeli attacks (especially the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah), Tehran finds itself on a back foot.
Some Israeli and Western officials believe that all of this will make Iranian leaders more desperate to ensure they have a final and ultimate defense against any threats (as in rapidly developing a nuke).
But if a soon to be inaugurated Trump were to authorize strikes on Iranian facilities, this would also obviously violate his frequent vows to his voters to not start new wars in the Middle East. The reality is that even 'limited' strikes still constitute an act of war. The potential for runaway escalation involving the US, Iran, and Israel would be a much bigger likelihood.
