The American administration aims to achieve several objectives by proposing joint military planning with Israel against Iran. These objectives include containing Israeli military threats against Iran, exerting greater pressure on Iran, alleviating domestic American pressures ahead of the presidential elections, and countering Iran’s regional expansion in crisis-stricken Arab countries.

While President Joe Biden’s administration is committed to preserving opportunities to revive the nuclear agreement, the negotiations have reached a stalemate due to several unresolved disputes with Iran. In addition, the administration emphasizes the importance of sending clear messages, whether to Iran or its allies, to demonstrate their seriousness in addressing the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program. This program has progressed to a stage that raises significant doubts regarding its proximity to the ability to produce a nuclear bomb. The administration is even willing to consider the military option if Iran continues its nuclear development.

In this context, on May 17th, the website “Axios” reported that the US administration had presented the idea of joint military planning against Iran to Israel. This proposal was put forward during recent visits by American officials to Israel, which included Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and General Eric Khorilla, the Commander of US Central Command.

Multiple Motives

Several motives can be interpreted to explain the US administration’s inclination towards adopting this option during the current stage, in light of several prominent motives, including:

1. Addressing Israeli military inclinations: The US administration recognizes the potential for the Israeli government, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, to increasingly rely on the military option in response to what it perceives as imminent threats posed by Iranian nuclear activities. This assessment is based on the administration’s observation of internal pressures faced by the current government, which could potentially undermine the cohesion of the right-wing ruling coalition. Additionally, the administration notes multiple Israeli trends that it considers as unprecedented Iranian proximity to Israeli borders, including support for armed Palestinian factions. This perception was further heightened during the recent confrontation between Israel and the Islamic Jihad movement in May, which ultimately resulted in a ceasefire agreement facilitated by Egypt.

During a meeting with a delegation of American lawmakers from both the Republican and Democratic parties on May 4th, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized the dangers posed by Iranian nuclear activities. He reiterated his warnings, stating, “If Iran, which views the United States as the Great Satan, acquires the ability to threaten any American city through nuclear blackmail, it will reshape history and the world map.” Netanyahu further highlighted that Iran is “50 times more dangerous than North Korea.” These remarks indirectly criticize the US administration’s approach towards Iran, suggesting that it prioritizes containment strategies for North Korea’s nuclear program, while, in his view, failing to take sufficient action to halt or mitigate the escalating threats posed by Iran’s nuclear activities.

The US administration has concerns that Israel might independently handle the conflict with Iran, potentially disrupting Washington’s strategic calculations. Currently, the administration does not seem to give high priority to the risks posed by Iran’s nuclear program. As a result, it is striving to restrict Israel’s approach to Iran by suggesting the concept of joint military planning between the two countries.

2. Exerting significant pressure on Iran: The objective behind this offer is for Washington to increase pressure on Iran, especially considering Iran’s continued advancements in its nuclear program. Although Iran has not surpassed the 60% uranium enrichment threshold, it has been accumulating a larger amount of enriched material at this level through ongoing enrichment operations at the Natanz and Fordow facilities. Iran is employing more advanced centrifuges than those permitted under the nuclear agreement.

In this context, Washington’s objective extends beyond sending a deterrent message to Iran. It also aims to persuade Iran of the importance of adopting a more flexible policy that could facilitate the resumption of negotiations. These negotiations came to a halt in August of the previous year when Iran rejected the draft agreement put forth by Josep Borrell, the EU’s High Representative for Foreign Affairs. The US administration believes that the present circumstances necessitate prioritizing the diplomatic option in order to find a resolution to the ongoing crisis. This resolution would involve reviving the nuclear agreement and deferring the Iranian nuclear issue until a later date.

3. Mitigating domestic pressures ahead of the presidential elections: The current US administration is grappling with significant domestic pressures stemming from its approach to handling Iran. These pressures are viewed as potentially having adverse consequences in the upcoming phase, particularly as preparations for the US presidential elections are underway. President Joe Biden is seeking re-nomination in these elections to secure another four-year term. The administration is focused on skillfully managing and addressing these internal pressures to ensure a smooth path forward.

The current US administration’s encounter with domestic pressures is not a novel occurrence. What distinguishes the present situation is that these pressures are no longer confined solely to the Republican Party; they have now permeated within the Democratic Party itself. Certain members of the Democratic Party hold the belief that the policy pursued by the current US administration contributed to the amplification, or more accurately, the “encouragement,” of Iran’s nuclear activities. They harbor concerns that the United States has limited options at its disposal to address this escalation.

The manifestation of these dual pressures from both the Republican and Democratic parties became apparent during a “classified” briefing on Iran provided to the Senate by certain officials within the administration on May 16. The Republican Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, had specifically requested this briefing, asserting that the US administration had been excessively accommodating towards Iran, resulting in a worsening of the Iranian threat during its tenure.

4. The proliferation of Iranian threats: The present US administration appears to adopt a distinct perspective, asserting that Iranian nuclear activities do not pose an immediate peril to the interests of the United States and its regional allies. Despite Iran’s uranium enrichment reaching 60% and approaching the threshold of nuclear weapon production capability, it still lacks certain crucial technical components that are not easily replaceable if it opts to construct a bomb, particularly pertaining to the nuclear detonator. This endeavor would likely require a substantial amount of time, and Iran does not seem to have made significant advancements in this aspect.

Therefore, the immediate threat posed by Iran originates from a different factor: Iran’s regional expansion. This expansion now directly jeopardizes US interests, as Iran aims to escalate the costs of US-imposed sanctions. Furthermore, Iran seeks to exact “revenge” for the targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Thus far, Iran has struggled to contain the consequences of this strike.

This threat has become apparent through the recurring military assaults conducted by pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq. One of the most notable attacks was the assault on a US base in northeastern Syria on March 24th, which led to the death of an American contractor and the injury of five soldiers. The Wall Street Journal reported on May 15th that this particular attack was executed by an Iraqi militia known as “The Guardians Brigade.” They employed an Iranian-manufactured drone of the “Qasef 2” model, targeting a US maintenance hangar in Al-Hasakah.

Hence, the US administration has not only employed military strikes on Iranian-affiliated sites and militias in Syria but has also begun conveying messages that signify its intention to enhance coordination with Israel in countering Iran’s regional influence. This influence poses a direct threat to American and Israeli interests in the region.

Continuous Escalation

In light of these circumstances, it can be anticipated that the forthcoming period will witness a sustained escalation between Tehran on one side and Washington and Tel Aviv on the other. This is particularly evident considering the numerous unresolved contentious matters among the three parties, with each side striving to bolster its position against the others. Nevertheless, this escalation does not undermine the possibility that Tehran and Washington might still be interested in preserving communication channels to seek a resolution to the nuclear crisis. Such a resolution could potentially pave the way for agreements on other issues at a later stage.