JINSA President Michael Makovsky: “Everyone always says attacking Iran is a last resort…we are getting to that moment of last resort.”
Iran’s nuclear program may need to be struck in multiple rounds of aerial strikes in order to finally end the country’s atomic threat, Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA) President Michael Makovsky told The Jerusalem Post in a recent interview.
As the Trump administration’s deadline for the Islamic Republic to agree to a new nuclear deal winds down to one to two months, one of the objections to Israel or the US attacking the nuclear program is the idea that the Iranians could just rebuild it.
This could mean that Jerusalem or Washington take on a large risk and may face significant retaliation without even achieving the longer-term objective of stopping a nuclear Iran.
Responding to this possibility, Makovsky stated, “So hit them again. Unfortunately, you might have to, if they keep trying to rebuild [the nuclear program]. You are not going to be able to get everything [in one strike]. Israel can’t.
“America could do something to be helpful. Refueling, helping with air defense, making sure Tehran understands that they could be a target if they try to widen the war to Dubai or Riyadh. I could see [US President Donald] Trump doing that. His interest is for the war to stay limited,” said the JINSA president.
Pressed about the idea that there may be later opportunities for such an attack, as long as Tehran is not actively moving toward developing a nuclear weapon, and only engaging in some of the related nuclear activities, he demurred.
“Everyone always says attacking Iran is a last resort. Now we’re hitting that point where it seems like we are getting to that moment of last resort. This may be the last opportunity. And then later we just hit them again,” if need be.
If we “keep doing that [attacking] and they’ll make it harder and bury things [elements of the nuclear program] further underground, [nevertheless] until this regime falls and there is a new regime that doesn’t want to pursue nuclear weapons, and cares about the welfare of their citizens,” there is no real other choice, he said.
What about using the maxim pressure campaign to coerce Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into refraining from moving closer to a nuclear weapon, in lieu of an attack?
Makovsky stated, “The maximum pressure campaign will be especially helpful after an attack. It is more important after an attack than before an attack. Iranian society is very vulnerable. There is terrible mismanagement in the economy. The people’s welfare is ignored. The fact that they have heating issues in the country with the largest natural gas reserves is mind-boggling to even imagine.”
In other words, an attack on the nuclear program along with the maximum pressure campaign could have a much greater combined chance of weakening Iran’s regime.
Another option is if Khamenei does make concessions and agree to a new nuclear deal, as Trump has said is his preference.
Opposing this, Makovsky said, “No, you have to attack. That [a new deal] would just be kicking the can down the road. I think there is no choice. And for people in the US who say they do not want another war: first of all, there could be an option that it could be contained, especially if the US would go after Tehran if it tried to widen any war.”
In fact, Makovsky said that the only positive development about Trump’s move to open new nuclear talks with Iran was that “at least he set a deadline” which can get all efforts against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program moving.
Makovsky warned that “time is short and the Iranian are masters at drawing things out. They squeeze the other side while they are advancing their nuclear program.
“Trump and Witkoff see themselves as master negotiators. They’re going up against real masters,” he noted.
However, he also stated, “The US has lots of cards to play, and Trump is playing them better than [former US president Joe] Biden. Hitting the Houthis and holding Iran responsible is way overdue. I really commend him a lot. Biden should have been doing this from the beginning. Trump deserves credit.”
Continuing, he said, “There is some debate about where the Iranians are in developing their nuclear program. Some say they are not weaponizing, so therefore we have time. Obviously, regarding uranium enrichment, we have no time,” given that Tehran has already enriched enough uranium to the 60% and 20% levels to convert to the 90% weaponized level for several weapons in a very short time.
Many estimates say that enough weaponized uranium for one weapon could be prepared in around one week, while several could be prepared within a few months.
“First of all, we should always be suspicious [whether] we [really] know so much. We have to be very humble,” he said.
Moreover, he cautioned that there are three trends supporting the idea that time is running out on negotiating with Tehran.
One, he said, is that time is running out for Israel “to settle accounts with Iran regarding October 7, not because they instigated the attack, but because they were preparing, helping, and training Hamas.” Put differently, if not for Iran’s help, Hamas could never have pulled off the October 7 invasion.
Two, Makovsky suggested that “Israel has learned from October 7. Before, Israel thought: we’ll hit them [only] when tomorrow is too late,” but now Jerusalem’s attitude is more along the lines that “the opportunity might not come again. What Israel did on October 26: neutralizing the S-300s, and obviously effectively neutralizing Hezbollah as a threat – this is an opportunity now to do something,” before Iran becomes less vulnerable.
Three, the JINSA head said time is running out for Israel “to restore its deterrent posture. This became more acute. They [Israelis] have been warning about doing this for 25 years. If you don’t do it [attack] when there is an existential threat or you keep saying it is [an existential threat], what happens to your deterrence posture?”
He added, “It is the same with the US, but America is so strong that it can get away with it,” without using force as often.
Converting US military aid to Israel to joint R&D in long-term
On March 11, it was disclosed that the Heritage Foundation was rolling out a plan to reduce US military aid to Israel in a gradual process over multiple decades. Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter withdrew his planned appearance at the Heritage event where the plan was due to be rolled out and the think tanks took some hits from the pro-Israel sphere.
Responding to this, Makovsky said, “Knowing the people involved, I know their motivations are coming from a good place. They are not people who are hostile to Israel. They care about Israel and are trying to figure out the best way forward. I give the Heritage people credit for trying to figure this out.
“Eventually, that is where the aid has to go – toward joint R&D. Where it should be spent, I am not sure,” he stated.
Next, he said, “Israel’s GDP per capita is higher now than before. Right now, we still cannot talk about it. Now, Israel needs more military support. But over the longer term, we’ll want to head toward more joint R&D.”
Also, he noted a November vote in Congress in which “19 Democratic senators out of 50, led by Bernie Sanders, voted to withhold aid to Israel after the election. So that is 38% of the Democrats. A few Republicans supported it,” but mostly not.
“Americans don’t like foreign aid. Politically, it’s challenging in the near term…. I am less worried for now, but this is about deep in the future. Americans are pro-Israel…. But in the longer term, in the decades ahead this could be different.”
Syria-Lebanon
Next, Makovsky was questioned about how, when, and under what conditions the IDF should withdraw from its buffer zone in southern Syria, including the Syrian Hermon.
Responding, he said, “I would not be in any rush to leave. We have to see what kind of government this is going to be…. I wrote something years ago after the Syrian civil war started, suggesting we should push for a federalized Syria.
“What people in the West don’t understand, which Israel understands more, since Israelis live in the region, is that this region was all Ottoman 100 years ago. Then it was divided up, and mostly artificial states were created, with borders drawn by drunk cartographers who were blindfolded,” he added.
Further, he said, “there are Kurdish areas spread out over four different countries. They were the biggest losers. Winston Churchill installed Sunni Arabs in control of majority-Shi’ite Iraq; and Abdullah, who was from another minority, in control of Transjordan. They had no idea about Sunni versus Shi’ite issues.”
Makovsky said that the “mix of ethnicities are explosive over time…. Many people view Israel’s border as always fungible, but with other states, they say, ‘no this is sacrosanct.’ Really? Why? Are borders sacrosanct? ISIS and the Iranians have proven they are not.
“Israel has changed its view. Before, Israel always thought you wanted a strong capital in Syria, so you had an address. Now Israel has come to learn some of the value of a weak capital in Syria. Israel has bombed so many things and can do whatever they want,” said the JINSA chief.
Continuing, he remarked that maybe a strong Sunni state which blocks Iranian influence and smuggling in the area would be in Israel’s interest, but that if Syria goes more in the direction of the Muslim Brotherhood, as it might go with support from Turkey, that would not be in Jerusalem’s interest.
Regarding the IDF’s five outposts in Lebanon, he said, “I would be in no hurry to leave them either. The Lebanese army needs to take over, and UNIFIL is a joke.”
Gaza
Regarding Gaza, Makovsky thought that the Trump Gaza plan opened up a wider conversation about problems that had been ignored.
While he does not have a clear solution for what should happen with managing Gaza in the long-term, he hopes some non-Hamas locals will be involved, and acknowledges that most Palestinians probably would not leave Gaza. He has issues with both the latest Egypt plan for rebuilding and with a long-term military occupation.
In fact, mostly he said that Israel should focus on its security needs, such as making sure that however Gaza’s future develops, the Jewish state retains a security zone, like it has in Lebanon and Syria.
“Israel needs to do what it needs to do for its security. People in the Israeli South have to feel safe to make sure there is not another October 7,” he concluded.
Originally published in the Jerusalem Post.