Natanz Attack: Threats and Implications

The Talks

The April 11 attack on Iran’s main nuclear facility was successful, operationally speaking. The attack took place hours after officials at the Natanz reactor restarted spinning centrifuges that could speed up the production of enriched uranium, the material needed for building a nuclear bomb. After the attack, an “intelligence official” told the New York Times that “it could take at least nine months to restore Natanz’s production.” I’m always suspicious when I see such exact dates. Why nine and not eight? Or ten? Or thirteen? I think what the official really meant to say is that the attack didn’t just cause a minor disruption — it damaged the facility in a way that will take time to restore.

Israel declined to confirm its responsibility for the attack, but it hinted at such a likelihood in every way possible — so much so that now, instead of talking about the attack, pundits are talking about its possible implications for Israel’s war against Iran and what the attack means for the resumption of U.S. nuclear talks with Iran, scheduled for later this week.

Yes, it is clear that the talks will resume, but an attack as massive as this has implications, no matter what the parties say. It could remind the Iranians that their time is not unlimited and that they better strike a deal to prevent more attacks (under the assumption that Israel wouldn’t dare attack Iran when an agreement is in place). It could make the Iranians more belligerent and demand a price for even coming to the table. It could force the hands of Iran’s leaders, who must respond to preserve the dignity of their country, knowing that inciting violence in the region could disrupt the talks.

it is clear that the talks will resume, but an attack as massive as this has implications, no matter what the parties say.

In short: The Iranians will come to the talks this week in a state of mind slightly different than before. They can see that the attack does not change their plans and does not impact their strategy. And yet, it does.

The Politics

So, assuming it’s Israel, as everyone seems to agree, why attack Iran now?

Two options were presented to the public, and a third is missing. The two are:

One — because of the U.S.-Iran talks. This is an attempt by Israel to sabotage the talks and send a message to the United States and other powers that it does not see itself bound by international agreements when its security is at risk. Such an interpretation puts Israel, once again, on a collision course with the United States and the Biden administration. Many critics were quick to note that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is returning to walk on a dangerous path, having done a similar thing when the Obama administration was in power.

Two – because of Israel’s coalition talks. This narrative portrays Netanyahu as a cynical leader who goes as far as putting Israel and its forces at risk to improve his chances to form a coalition or to divert the attention from his ongoing trial. Netanyahu’s former defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, asked the following rhetorical question, “could the public escalation with Iran be connected to the interest of controlling the daily news cycle in the face of the damning court testimonies?” Labor Party Chairwoman Merav Michaeli similarly argued that the prime minister “is cynically exploiting our defense system and abilities for his personal campaign.”

What’s the third option? Israel has been trying to hurt the nuclear facilities for many years. An operational opportunity presented itself after many months of preparations. Israel decided to act. Does this mean it wants to send a message to negotiating teams? Sure. Does this preclude Netanyahu’s political calculations? Not at all. Politicians always weigh the political risks and benefits as part of their broader set of calculations when they implement a policy.

The Leaks

Israel knows how to keep a secret when it wants to keep a secret. This time, it did not make a special effort to keep the attack and its perpetrators anonymous. Why? Again, there are three options. One, because it wanted to send a message and wanted the addressee to know who the messenger was. Two, because Netanyahu wanted to brag for his personal reasons. Three, because someone wasn’t careful and leaked information without thinking about it.

Of these three options, the one concerning Netanyahu’s interests was the one most talked about in Israel. Netanyahu’s rivals, who cannot criticize the operation itself (except for very few who did), criticized the PM and his Byzantine courtyard of aides for making a tense situation worse by talking to the press. Defense Secretary Benny Gantz called for an investigation to uncover who has been leaking classified details on Israeli operations to the media. His request was sent to Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit more as a show of deliberation than a real attempt to have an investigation.

And so, on the eve of Yom HaZikaron, Israel’s memorial day for its fallen soldiers, an exchange takes place that further erodes the confidence Israelis have in their leaders — sending soldiers and agents to battle.

Yes, Iran is a threat that Israel must fight. But if Israelis doubt the motivations of prime ministers as Israel goes to war, that’s also a threat. And it is Netanyahu’s job to defend us from this threat, no less than it is his job to protect us from Iran.