Opinion>Opinions - National Security

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Gaming out a nuclear Iran

Comments:

by Keith Naughton, opinion contributor - 04/30/26 8:00 AM ET

Comments:

Link copied

by Keith Naughton, opinion contributor - 04/30/26 8:00 AM ET

Comments:

Link copied

Getty Images

President Trump has a new offer on the table from Iran — a climbdown by both sides, with the promise of future negotiations. Trump has (correctly) rejected this offer.

Why was that the right move? Because, as Trump himself noted, the Iranians refused to stand down on their nuclear ambitions and have made it clear they have no intention of ending them.

That is the key issue for any resolution. Once the conflict started and the U.S. and Israelis showed they could strike the country at will, the end of Iran’s nuclear program turned from a top strategic priority to a strategic necessity. Any possibility that the Iranian leadership would not develop and manufacture multiple nuclear devices disappeared — although that possibility was always very, very low.

What would a nuclear Iran do? Or, more particularly, what would its current, murderous fanatical leaders do?

First, we should consider each nation. Israel is a country of just 8,500 square miles — smaller than New Jersey — with a population of about 10 million, concentrated in the northern half of the country. A majority of the country is the barren Negev Desert. Iran is nearly the size of Alaska, with more than 92 million people.

A nuclear attack — even the successful detonation of a single device — would be devastating to Israel in a way that would never be the case for Iran. If Iran were to land just a few nuclear bombs, it would essentially eliminate Israel, not to mention the deadly fallout through the Middle East and beyond.

But would Iran launch such an attack? Considering that the faction ruling the country, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, has continuously funded terrorist groups attacking Israel and destabilizing Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, is anything beyond the pale? The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has proven itself an implacably violent and aggressive group, completely heedless to the suffering of the Iranian people. It has spread violence and misery throughout the Middle East and shown no reticence whatsoever.

In short, there is nothing in their history or background that gives any indication they would shy away from using the ultimate weapon.

The way the regime treats the Iranian people is a key indicator. Mass murder and incarceration is just part of its playbook for domestic control. And, given the geographic size of Iran and its population, a nuclear Israel could not destroy the entire state and all its leadership.

It is plausible that Iran’s leaders decide the losses inflicted by the Israelis are acceptable, if the tradeoff is the end of the Jewish State. They could also pursue a less genocidal but still insidious strategy that would leave the entire Middle East in a perpetual state of fear.

Consider a strategy where the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps detonates a single device in the Negev Desert, perhaps at an Israeli military base. If it launches enough projectiles to overwhelm the Iron Dome, it could sneak in a nuclear-armed missile, killing thousands — all of whom they could claim are legitimate targets.

What would Israel do? There would be enormous pressure not to respond with their own nuclear strike. If Israel ignored that pressure, what would Israel hit? Is there an equivalent military base? If they hit something other than a military base, is that an unacceptable escalation? Even if the Israelis just make a precision strike (as “precise” as a nuclear bomb can be), the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will have demonstrated a willingness to use its nuclear arsenal, and that should terrify the rest of the Middle East.

Alternately, Iran could go the airburst route, detonating a nuclear device high over Israel. Israel’s Iron Dome can intercept a missile at a height of 10 kilometers and at a distance of up to 70 kilometers. But that’s the maximum. An airburst as near to the ground as 8 kilometers can disrupt electronics. The closer to the surface, the greater the disruption. That’s not much margin for error. Iran might even be satisfied with a demonstration at a high enough altitude to obviate the possibility of interception.

What is the response to an airburst that terrifies Israeli citizens but “only” destroys electronic equipment? A retaliatory airburst over Tehran would mean nothing to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The disruption of civilian life seems of no consequence to them, and terrorizing civilians is what they do every day.

Israel could launch a nuclear strike against an Iranian military target — perhaps a location that might store some of their de