John Donvan
This is Open to Debate. I’m John Donvan. Hi, everybody. Since missiles from Iran reached the skies over Israel only nights ago and sirens sounded across the country, their wailing pitches asked a question, what next? Things were already going in a dangerous cycle. Israel had assassinated Hezbollah’s leader in Lebanon, whose ally was Iran. That was partly payback for Hezbollah firing rockets into Israel all year long. Iran responded by sending those nearly 200 missiles into Israel. That was more payback. And now, by the logic of this endless dynamic, it is Israel’s turn to pay back Iran, which Israel’s prime minister is promising will happen. Quoting Benjamin Netanyahu, “Israel has the duty and the right to defend itself and respond to these attacks, and it will do so.”

In the recent past, the US has been urging Israel to show response. Right now, its statements are slightly more ambivalent, but just as the world is divided on Israel’s war in Gaza, so is it split on what Israel can and should do about Iran, with concerns about a wider war, and more casualties, and more instability. With this as context, join us as we debate the question, should Israel strike Iran? Let’s meet our debaters. Answering yes to the question, should Israel strike Iran, I wanna welcome Michael Duran, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute. Michael, welcome back, actually, to Open to Debate. It’s great to have you here.

Michael Doran
Great to be here, John.

John Donvan
And here to answer no to the question, which again, is should Israel strike Iran, I wanna welcome Dr. Shira Efron. Shira is senior director of policy research at the Israel Policy Forum. Shira, welcome to Open to Debate.

Shira Efron
Thank you for having me.

John Donvan
So let’s move on to our opening statements. We would like each of you to take a few minutes to explain why you’re answering yes or no to our question. Michael, you’re up first, and you are answering yes to the question, should Israel strike Iran. Please tell us why.

Michael Doran
Well, thank you, John. Uh, uh, I wouldn’t say just that Israel should. Israel has to. It, it has no choice, and it has been put in that position by the United States. I think it’s really important that we understand the causes of this war. The Biden administration has habitually framed the war as an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it has told us that the solution to the war, the end of the war, should be some kind of ceasefire in Gaza. But, uh, it is objectively not a Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or not just a Hamas-Israel conflict. Uh, the day after Hamas opened up against Israel, Hezbollah attacked Israel in the North. That’s on October 8th. Shortly thereafter, the Houthis got involved, and then shortly after that, we had the militias in Iraq and Syria, all operated by Iran or activated by Iran, guided by Iran.

So, this is, uh, very much Iran’s war. Iran started it, and the goal of the war is to weaken not just Israel, but the American alliance system. And unfortunately, the Biden administration has defined it, as I said, as a Palestinian-Israeli war, and it has looked to Israeli restraint constantly, to solve the problem. The problem will only be solved by deterring Iran, and, uh, something amazing has happened in the last few weeks, uh, John. It’s really, really remarkable. Israel has decapitated Hezbollah, and it has turned it into an organization that’s not capable of threatening Israel with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones. Um, these are the disruptive military capabilities that Iran has been distributing to its proxies around the region.

Uh, we, when we talked about a war between Israel and Iran or between Israel and Hezbollah just a few months ago, we thought of nightmare scenarios of thousands and thousands of precision guided weapons, uh, flyer d- in, in sh- from short range from Lebanon, raining down on Israel, uh, because Iran was using Hezbollah as the shield of its nuclear program. And now, uh, the shield has been destroyed, effectively. It is no longer what it was, and Iran is laid bare. It’s naked, uh, and it’s the enormous opportunity for the United States, um, and for Israel, for the entire Western world, to finally rid themselves, uh, or at, uh, at least diminish significantly, the threat to peace and security that Iran represents.

Every president since, uh, every president since Bill Clinton has said that it is unacceptable that Iran should de- develop a nuclear weapon, uh, and yet Iran has marched forward and forward and forward, and under the, uh, uh, under the term of every president, and gotten closer to a nuclear weapon, so that now, uh, Iran is just weeks away, uh, from having enough fissile material to build a nuclear weapon, and just months away from actually having a device that it can put on one of the ballistic missiles, uh, uh, of the kind that it shot at Israel already twice in the last few months.

Uh, given the fact that Iran has lost its shield, Hezbollah, the threat to the world of actually stripping Iran of its nuclear capabilities and stripping Iran of its disruptive military capabilities has diminished significantly. We can’t let them rebuild. We can’t let them come back. This is the time… We have them on the ropes. Or we don’t have them on the ropes. The Israelis have them on the ropes, looking after their own interests, because they have been put in this position by the United States, which is, by engaging Iran, has allowed it to, um, uh, has allowed it to, uh, carry out aggressive actions around the region. So, we have an opportunity now. The risk to the w- to us is less than ever before, the risk to the Israelis. Let’s seize the opportunity.

John Donvan
Thanks very much, Michael. Shira, you’re taking the opposite side. You believe that Israel should not strike Iran. You have four minutes to make your case.

Shira Efron
You know, the format today sets up the discussion about what Israel should do about Iran in quite a binary way, and I think what we need to offer is, uh, nuance, because this is a complex, uh, problem. And let me say up front that Israel must respond militarily to Iran’s attack. Um, however, and this is where Mike, uh, ended up, I don’t think that this attack, uh, should be on Iranian nuclear facilities. And that is quite a big difference. So mulling through the available choices, I’ll explain to you why I don’t think it needs to be on the nuclear sites. However, and this might be where the contrast between us is less, uh, stark than you’d think, is that after Iran fired 300 drones and missiles on Israel on April 14th, and last week launched, uh, 201 ballistic missiles on Israel, Is- Israel should, uh, in fact retaliate.

Why not on Iran’s nuclear facilities? The first reason is technical. At the stage of the Iranian program now, and we can get into it in the discussion, Israel cannot destroy the program. It can only set it back, and it’s not clear by how much, definitely not if it’s operating by itself. We can speak about it, uh, more, but the sites of Iran’s nuclear program are around, uh, 1,000 miles away from Israel. They’re not located at a single facility. They’re scattered all over. There are 21, uh, reported sites. There are other clandestine sites. Um, uh, they are fortified. They are hidden, in ways that I’ll give you example. Even the Fordo, uh, and, uh, and Atan sites. Uh, uh, Fordo was built inside of a mountain, and Atan’s was built at a depth of around 320 feet, so a depth that even the bunker-busting bombs may not be able to penetrate.

Getting there is also a problem. There are a few countries in-between Israel and Iran, countries that are friendly and others that are not friendly, and they would have to, uh, be notified, so this takes away the element of surprise, a country like Iraq, and also agree to Israel using its airspace. The aircraft itself, it doesn’t only need to reach the target, but it also needs to return. Uh, we’re talking about dozens or even hundreds of aircraft w- would have to execute this mission, uh, exiting Iran without an escort envelope, uh, that Israel cannot provide to large a, such a large-scale mission, definitely not without the US support.

Uh, and that brings me to my next point, with all the criticism that Mike pointed about the Biden administration. This is the administration that now we have. The administration is not supportive of this action at the moment, and sitting here in Tel Aviv, I will tell you that what October 7th reinforced to all Israelis is the dependence of this country on the United States. Damaging the US now when Israel needs the US most to continue the campaign against Hezbollah that is so successful, to compin- continue the campaign on the six other fronts, except for Iran, that Israel is fighting would be detrimental to Israel’s, uh, security.

Now, taking those immense risks the military wants, because Ira- Iran will retaliate, and the proxies, even though undermined, they still exist. We, we had 12 casualties here in Tel Aviv yesterday, some by Hezbollah. Hezbollah is not finished. Lose all international support, including the United States, to achieve an outcome that would not destroy the Iranian nuclear program, but even under the o- most optimistic scenario would only damage it, um, to me is taking a risk that we should not be taking at the moment. What it will surely do is not only maybe we will undermine Iranian capabilities a bit, but what we will do is, uh, r- uh, strengthen their resolve, and at the stage of the Iranian program at the moment, and the knowledge that its, its engineers and what we call the weapons group have, they can recover the program and make it much more durable, future, and for sure, an Israeli attack will harden Iranian resolve.

What I think we should do instead is extract the costs from Iran directly, but be strategic. After, uh, a very painful year here, the IDF has finally achieved what we call escalation dominance on Hezbollah. Let’s continue, uh, degrading the ring of fire that the Iranian axis created around Israel, create, uh, uh, a diplomatic, uh, front to sanction-

John Donvan
Shira, I have to, I have to jump in, Shira, because you’ve hit time. Um, but, uh, I think you’ve covered pretty much what you wanted to say, so I think this was an opportune time to break in. We’re gonna come up to, uh, a break, but before we do, I just wanna step back for both of you for just a moment. This is not part of the debate. We’re curious, just to get your perspective, since both of you have been following foreign policy and working in this field for a long time. I covered Israel as a journalist for a long time, and what we always said is it’s, it’s the same story 30 years later. 30 years on, the same situation is going on. I’m curious to hear whether you feel there’s something different happening this time. Uh, Shira, can you go first?

Shira Efron
I mean, there, there’s no question that something is happening, you know, having lived in both countries, in the US and Israel. I think what October 7th did t- to Israel has really, uh, upended the sense of security. We’re talking about Lebanon, the West Bank, Syria, Yemen, uh, Iraq, and Iran. I think for the first time ever, up until maybe a few weeks ago, when the, the tide has changed, uh, vis-a-vis Hezbollah, Israelis have felt, again, first time since 1948, that they’re, uh, facing an existential threat.

John Donvan
Thank you very much. And Michael, same question for you. Does this time feel different in any way?

Michael Doran
Oh, absolutely. I agree with everything that Shira just said, uh, from the Israeli point of view. I’ll just add a few more things. Uh, th- I think, uh, everyone can now see pretty clearly, maybe not everyone, but most people, that the United States is adopting a different posture in the region than it has historically. The Israelis, uh, understand that deterrence of Iran, deterrence of its enemies depends primarily on them, not on the United States. They can’t-

John Donvan
Mm-hmm.

Michael Doran
… subcontract any of that to their, to their major ally. In the last few weeks, as I had said in my opening comments, Hezbollah has been transformed into a different kind of organization than it was just a few months ago. It has been diminished significantly, and the Israelis will not let it come back.

John Donvan
This is Open to Debate. More when we return. Welcome back to Open to Debate. I’m John Donvan, and the question we’re taking on is, should Israel strike Iran? I’m here with our debaters, Michael Duran, who’s a senior fellow and director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at the Hudson Institute, and Dr. Shira Efron, Senior Director of Policy Research at the Israel Policy Forum.

Um, so Michael, we heard you say in your opening that, uh, Iran represents the major source of instability and risk in the Middle East, um, n- not just for Israel, but also for the United States and I, I think you would say even beyond that, and that we are at a unique moment in the history of the region in terms of Iran’s sudden vulnerability, uh, militarily, because of having lost a, a great deal of its shield with the, uh, diminishment of Hezbollah at the hands of Israel, and that if ever there was a time to strike Iran and, uh, I think you’re saying for once, once and for all, that moment has come up now, e- especially because they are getting so close to being nuclear capable.

Uh, Shira, you are saying yes, of course there needs to be a response to, um, uh, Ir- Iran’s missile attack militarily, but the idea of going after n- uh, nuclear plant, this kind of massive strike on, uh, the nuclear, uh, program i- is just impractical. The, the, the, uh, Iran is too far away. The pr- the facilities are too spread out. They’re too hard to find. They’re too well fortified. At best, there would be a little bit of a hit that Iran would survive, and then Iran would wanna be coming back as well. Uh, and so you, you’re just feeling that that particular m- m- sort of massive going in big strike against the nuclear side of Iran is just ill advised.

So I wanna, I wanna go back to you, Michael, and ask you, the main argument we heard from Shira against going after, uh, uh, Iran’s nuclear facilities is that it’s just impractical. It can’t really be done successfully. What about that?

Michael Doran
Well, I, uh, this is gonna be really boring for you, John, because I agreed with about 90% of what, uh, Shira said, when viewed from the, uh, from the Israeli point of view, at this particular moment. But, the thing that, that I was most struck by in her comments was that she said, “We can’t do this, because the United States is against it.” And this, this is where I wanna put the emphasis of my remarks, John, is that the United States should be for it. The United States should see that Israel’s actions in Lebanon, and also in Gaza, by d- d- by, uh, all but destroying Hamas and diminishing Hezbollah, have created an opportunity that we need to seize. Uh, b-

One thing that I do disagree with Shira about is that she said an attack on Iran by Israel will simply harden Ira- Iran’s resolve and encourage it to race to a bomb. Uh, I would say that we’re already a little bit, uh, pregnant in that regard, because of the decapitation of Hezbollah by Israel. The Iranians feel extremely vulnerable already. They’re not gonna feel even more vulnerable because Israel’s going after their nuclear program. If they think that the nuclear program is a shield from external attack, then believe me, they have all, every reason now to really go for it, which is one of the things that we need to think about. This war has already taken us to a point where the Iranians are gonna, are, are, are likely to race for a bomb, and we need to stop that.

John Donvan
Shira?

Shira Efron
Well, we have not, so far… And I’m not gonna talk about intelligence, uh, materials, but we have not so f- s- seen so far, Iran’s decision to break into a bomb. It’s very convenient for them to be in a place, I agree, where they can make the decision and break in very, very quickly, and there is a question. As Israel is hitting on their basically second strike capability, right? Hezbollah, the crown jewel of its, uh, axis, uh, of proxies, has been designed as a second strike capability against, uh, an attack on its nuclear facilities.

You could argue that as Hezbollah has been degraded, they’re now facing a more strategic choice whether to break or not, and I assess (laughs) based on, um, a variety of sources, that death will str- strengthen their resolve to go in that direction. I will say, also, I mean, you know, I… Maybe, um, uh, the technical issue is, is really important, and I didn’t mean to imply that Israel cannot, uh, dent its program substantially. We c- we can extract damage, right? But there’s an issue of capability and intent. On the capabilities, with the United States and participation, cooperation, a tacit one from, uh, regional players, uh, maybe we can, uh, damage their program. The intent, I am pretty sure it would s- push them in the other direction.

I just wanna say another point that we have to remember at the moment. S- sitting here in Tel Aviv, if you think of Yahya Sinwar, uh, Hamas mass murderer, terrorist, still alive in Gaza, his dream is to bring to a regional all-out war, escalation, to create a rift between Israel and the United States, right? That’s what he wants. Why are we playing into his hands? Finally, Israel has reached escalation dominance. Let’s keep the eye on the ball, try to, uh, finish the proxies, and have a different strategy when we come to Iran, and make it, uh, face this decision that, uh, to my knowledge, uh, Iran has not made.

John Donvan
Michael?

Michael Doran
Uh, so, uh, uh, uh, the question isn’t has Iran made the decision today to get a nuclear weapon. Ir- Iran is within days of having enough fissile material to build, uh, several nuclear-

John Donvan
Can I… Can I just break in to check? Do we, do we all agree to that? Shira, do you agree that that assessment is, um, not controversial?

Shira Efron
Uh, it- it’s between, uh, weeks and month, but yes, it’s very… They’re very close.

Michael Doran
Okay, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll, I’ll say weeks. It’s within weeks of having enough fissile material. Uh, it’s within months of having, uh, uh, an actual warhead that it can put on a, a ballistic missile. The threat that we have… Uh, Shira mentioned escalation dominance. Right now, what’s going on between Israel and Iran is a fight for escalation dominance between the two of them. Israel significantly, uh, diminished the, uh, Iranian capabilities, which were displayed after the April 13 barrage. The April 13 barrage was a nightmare for Israeli, for Israel’s leaders, because it combined two challenges simultaneously that reinforce each other. One is the disruptive military capabilities that Iran has, all these drones, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, which it puts together in the, in, in combined strike packages that can overwhelm Israeli, uh, sensors and interceptors.

The, the other is American restraint. The only way th- that Israel can counter these disruptive military capabilities that Iran has is by taking away from Iran things that Iran holds dear, and it started that process with the decapitation of, of Hezbollah. Iran then countered with the latest barrage of ballistic missiles. If, if, uh, Iran were to get five nuclear weapons, uh, five nuclear devices, warheads, and put them on these ballistic missiles, which are all nuclear capable, and shoot them off in, uh, the five amidst a, a barrage of 100 or 200 missiles, Israel has no way of knowing which missile is nuclear capability and which isn’t. Um, and so, uh, this is, this is something that has to weigh very, very heavily on the Israeli leadership, but also on us. This is a security threat to the United States. Those missiles that hit Israel from Iran can also hit Ukraine. Ira- uh, Iran is already-

John Donvan
So, but Michael, Michael, let me just break in. I, I understand you’re laying out the threat that Iran r- represents, but to the degree that what, what Shira is arguing i- is that I- I- Israel can’t go in and, and do this alone. I know you’re, you’re agreeing with that. But she’s also arguing that it would provoke something that nobody seems to want, an, an all-out war. So Shira, I, I think what I hear Michael saying is that you, we, you, you can’t kind of sit around much longer and hope for a, uh, ho- ho- hope for things to work out, that Iran represents a threat immediately now, and, and that that threat needs to be directly addressed, directly addressed, by which he means a military action. What is your take on, on that assessment?

Shira Efron
Uh, uh, uh… You, you know, I, I don’t, I don’t want to make this boring for you, so I, I will go back to the JCPOA, uh, the nuclear agreement on, with, with Iran, that I, I don’t wanna go back and, and defend it, but I think the, the, the expectations of the nuclear agreement with Iran, uh, were overblown. I never thought it will change Iranian, uh, behavior. I didn’t think it will, uh, make Iran join the Zionist movement. What it was supposed to do is set back the (laughs) Iranian program, which it did, until the Trump d- administration decided to pull away from, from, uh, the agreement. And by the way, being in that agreement freed Israeli IDF sources, uh, to, to focus on Hezbollah, and the fruit of that labor, we are seeing in a very successful campaign today.

So I think just, just to go back to that, I do not, um, uh, disagree about, uh, the, the description of the threat, but the outcome of, uh, a preemptive strike, which… When has history even done a preemptive strike on something that is the scale of the Iranian program? This is not Iraq in, in t- in, uh, 1981. This is not, uh, uh, Syria in 2007. Those are entirely things. For a mission that will not, uh, be perfect, by far, it will not be perfect, and it would lead to a regional escalation that no one at the moment wants, and I dare to say, even in rooms inside of Israel’s national security, uh, establishment, because you know, speaking from the US, it’s a whole different issue, but in Israel, the IDF is stretched way too thin. It’s fighting, as I said, on seven fronts, for over a year. People have been in reserve duty for 200 days, including fighter pilots. This is just not a realistic option.

What I do think we need to do, and if we move forward to what we need to do, uh, when, when, when President Trump pulled away from JCPOA, he ins- he put this strategy of maximum pressure, which focused on economic sanctions. What we are doing now at the moment, what Israel is doing, is maximum pressure on the proxies. This needs to be supported. This needs to continue all around, including with the sanction, uh, regime, and we can get to why I do think it’s important, and have a coherent US policy that’s, that’s bipartisan, because I would argue that it’s like, yes an agreement, no an agreement. We’re not sure (laughs). Uh, only, uh, b- uh, b- b- uh, bolsters, uh, Iranian ambitions, and it confuses everyone else to, to be honest.

John Donvan
Right.

Shira Efron
And have a credible threat, which at the moment, we don’t have. I don’t think we have to execute the threat, but we should have, uh, a credible military threat, if everything else is lost.

John Donvan
For members of our audience who are, who may not be familiar with the agreement that’s being referred to, um, it’s, uh, called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. It’s no longer really, uh, effective, but it was, um, an agreement reached under the leadership of the Obama administration, five other countries, and Iran, um, d- under which sanctions were lifted on Iran in return for which Iran was, uh, allowing inspections and putting some slowdown on in- it’s nuclear development. That plan, as Shira pointed out, kinda fell apart and is no longer effective. I just wanna provide that background.

Michael, I just wanna go back to you. The… What I hear… Uh, Shira’s referred to, um, the, the risk of all-out war, and it seems that when the Biden administration is a- urging deescalation, which frustrates a lot of people who want Is- Israel to be doing more, that its concern, also, is you start a, you, you, you light that match in, in Ira- in Iran. It can just go on and on and on. China could get involved. Russia could get involved. It could get bigger and bigger. You, you haven’t addressed that scenario, and I’m wondering if it’s, if it’s because you feel it’s a price worth paying or it’s a price that doesn’t have to be paid.

Michael Doran
Uh, I think the key is American policy. I… W- where I have, uh, great sympathy with everything that Shira is saying is, um… And, and if I were to paraphrase, you know, is, is she’s saying, “How can this guy who’s sitting in Washington, DC, tell the Israeli military, or the Israeli public, yeah? Yeah, to go take this massive risk on behalf of his ideas of what, uh, uh, of, of what’s gonna be good for the world, when we have to take all of the consequences?” And, uh, I, and I have to say, I completely agree with her. That’s the… Because that’s not what I’m saying. Uh, I- uh, Israel, right now, under the current policies of the United States, would probably be very unwise to do what it, what, what I’m saying, because (laughs) the United States is not supporting it.

What I’m saying is that the United States should support such a thing. It should come in behind Israel. The Biden administration has it exactly wrong about how to contain this. The Biden administration has been preaching, since October 7th, that we don’t… And, and literally since October 7th, the, the evening. While it Ha- while the Hamas terrorists were raping and murdering all in the Gaza periphery, the Biden administration spokesmen were out, were out saying, “We don’t want this to become a wider war, and we want to work to, to, to contain it just to Gaza.” But what’s happened? It’s gotten wider and wider, because the Iranians understand that the United States will put a shield of protection over them, by telling the Israelis not to attack Iranians.

And the United States, when it’s even directly attacked, we’ve been directly attacked by Iran’s proxies in Iraq, in Syria, in Jordan, and also, uh, on, on the seas, in the Red Sea and the, uh, and the Indian Ocean. And in response, our, uh, um, our rules of engagement, militarily, restrict our, uh, military from killing an Iranian. We can’t kill an Iranian in Yemen, even though Iran is doing this to us. The only way we bring stability to the region is if we, uh, deter Iran. And to deter Iran, I agree entirely with Shira, you need a credible military threat, not just from Israel, but from the United States. But the only way, after deca- after, after, uh, this long period of, um, appeasement of Iran by the United States, the only way you establish a credible military threat is by taking military action.

John Donvan
And you mean, Michael, just very briefly, ’cause I wanna get to Shira, you mean very major military action.

Michael Doran
Well, let me quote the defense minister of, uh, of Israel. It should be lethal, it should be, um, uh, it, it should be significant, and it should be a surprise. You can scare the bajeebus out of the Ayatollah Khamenei without carpet bombing Tehran.

John Donvan
Shira?

Shira Efron
So, first of all, just Mike, I know you personally, and I also know from your writings, that you’re not this guy in Washington pushing the Israelis to assume risk.

Michael Doran
(laughs).

Shira Efron
I know you care deeply about, uh, the safety I Israel and the people of this region, so rest assured. On the Biden administration, even if we criticize current policy, as, I will just say, as someone who’s Israeli-American, never, but have been in Israel, in this country, Israel would’ve been done for if it wasn’t for the support of the Biden administration, and while Hamas was still, uh, beheading babies in the South part of this country, uh, the Biden administration came in with munitions and diplomatic support that really, I can’t imagine what Israel would look like if it didn’t… Uh, and they should be getting credit for this. Uh, even if they failed to deter the regional war that they, uh, meant to do later on, but, but, uh, uh, uh, in, in all fairness, I think this n- needs to be said.

Now, when we talk about a credible military threat, there’s a credible military threat that is, uh, directed specifically about the nuclear, the nuclear program, and that should be restored. But I see the fact that the US, um, greenlighting other targets for Israel, and supplying the munitions. And, uh, don’t get it wrong. We have no munitions without the US, right? It’s mostly US, and there are a few other countries that have placed embargoes on Israel at the moment. Um, and, and tacitly arranging the system, and being here, and you know the assets, uh, in the Middle East, with, despite this attempted pivot to Asia, which hasn’t occurred. (laughs) The m- w- with the last three administration, uh, being here with presence, that on the one hand protects Israel, but also on the other, as has been reported from the Pentagon, um, emboldens Israel to take action.

So I don’t see this as such as the US not having a credible threat on Iran. I think what we are trying to talk about, um, is developing a strategy, and I don’t see it happening with this current administration, but there are elections soon, having a better strategy for the next, uh, US president, whoever he or she may be, uh (laughs) to, to have a coherent policy that works with allies and achieves, uh, the, the mutual interests of peop- of these people of the region, including Israel, and, and, and US, and US national security. And, uh, striking Iran at this par- particular moment, its nuclear assets, only to, to degrade it, um, to me just sounds, uh, counterproductive. And maybe I’ll just end with this.

You know, we talk about, like, how we Israelis, we’re very emotional, and we want to respond (laughs) and, and attack, and revenge, and the Iranians, right? They’re supposed to be those chess players and think, we can try, uh, giving them some of their own, you know, medicine, and just reserve the right for a response, and drag them, and scare them, and not, not respond exactly now. Just wait it out a little bit. Um, this, this is also an option.

John Donvan
Yeah, that’s a bit more of a head game. What about playing that head game instead, Michael? Just letting peoples, let- letting Iran stew for a while?

Michael Doran
The Israelis can’t do it for very long. They can do it a little bit. They’ve ki- they ki- been doing it over the last week. Uh, for two reasons. Uh, I don’t agree with Shira that, uh, that they, uh, that the, uh, uh, Biden administration is, uh, is giving, uh, Israel a list of acceptable options to strike Ir- Iran. The Biden administration, um, is formally doing that, uh, but it clearly does not want Israel to strike Iran at all. Uh, and we’ve seen it. Historically, that’s the way it was. That’s the wa- That’s… That was their message back in, uh, back in April. They’re doing everything they can now to string out the decision-making, uh, and to Isr- and to offer Israel options other than striking, including, uh, including economic sanctions. The Americans have gotten a little tougher in the last week with the British against the Houthis. That’s part of the negotiation with the Israelis, to say, “Well, don’t strike Iran. We’ll work together on fighting the proxies, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.”

John Donvan
More from Open to Debate when we return. Welcome back to Open to Debate. We are taking on the question, should Israel strike Iran? I’m John Donvan, and I’m joined by our debaters, Michael Duran and Dr. Shira Efron. Michael, I had to interrupt you mid flow, so if you wanna continue your thought, please, go for it.

Michael Doran
Th- there are risks of inaction, John. When the Biden said to the Israelis last April, “Take the win,” because no, o- only one Israeli citizen, uh, died as a result of those attacks, uh, in, in, in April. But what happened? The Iranians got a lot of information from the Israelis. They got information about Israeli defenses and they got information about, uh, about, uh, the capabilities of Iran, of Iran’s weapons. And it shifted tactics. The first time, it, it sent combined strike packages, drones, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles. This time, in October 1, it sent only ballistic missiles. Why? Because Israel has a multi-tiered defense system, and what it, and what the Iranians decided to do was to saturate one tier, only one tier, by sending 200 ballist- ballistic missiles. And it succeeded. This attack, uh, this attack was more successful, let’s say, from the Iranian point of view, than the one before it. The next one is gonna be more successful than, than this one, b- because of the experience that the Iranians are gaining.

John Donvan
Mm-hmm.

Michael Doran
The, the Israelis have lost deterrent capability. It’s becoming acceptable that a country launches massive ba- uh, m- ballistic missile barrages against another another, or against Israel, to the international community. The only way to stop that, as I’ve said time and again, is to take from the Iranians things that they hold dear. And, American policy, unfortunately, is putting a shield over Iran, and giving them the, uh, uh, giving them a wall behind which to shoot their missiles.

John Donvan
That’s interesting. Shira, do you agree that the American policy is effectively protecting Iran at this moment?

Shira Efron
Before I get to American policy, I just, um, um, I, I find it, um, a bit weird not to think that the next time Iran retaliates won’t be even more severe. They, uh… It’s true that, uh, uh, some of their ballistic missiles, uh, they, they emptied on us, but you know, these were the Fateh, uh, missiles. They have the Emad. They have the Rotter. They have the Sedjil. They have stuff in their arsenal. To me, it, it feels that the next, uh, attack, uh, will be even more escalatory-

Michael Doran
(laughs).

Shira Efron
… against Israel.

Michael Doran
That’s, that, that’s what I’m saying.

Shira Efron
Yeah, so I-

Michael Doran
[inaudible].

Shira Efron
… just, I just don’t… I don’t understand if we hit them, and we hit them hard… I, uh, presumably, we will not be able to take out all their facil- Their… All their nuclear sites and all their, uh, uh, the arsenal of their missiles, uh, this is not something that we can do, not at the moment. I mean, it’s, it’s, it’s okay to exact a cost, but let’s think how we do this, but we need to make s- to, to understand that there will be a price, even for a strike.

Michael Doran
Oh, a- a- ab- absolutely. But you’re, but you’re locked in this dynamic. You’re l- you’re locked in this dynamic, so your choice is continue to absorb these strikes whenever Iran decides to str- to, to, to shoot them, or to begin to exact a price from, from Iran.

John Donvan
I’ve kind of asked you, uh, this a few times already, but I’ll put it more bluntly. There’s a lot of concern that doing something like that would l- d- put most extremely, would lead to World War III, it’s gonna bring in the other superpowers. Um, and I, I’d, I’d like to see if either of you sees that as a r- a real prospect, and Shira, do you wanna go first?

Shira Efron
I mean, I don’t… You know, we had two world wars, and they looked different from one another, and I don’t know what the third-

John Donvan
Sure.

Shira Efron
… one would look, uh, like, but, um, if we look at Iranian-Russian ties, Iranian-Chinese ties, it will definitely strengthen this axis. Whether it will translate into actual direct confrontation between the United States and, uh, and, and, and turn the great power competition into full-on great power, uh, war depends on to- to- so many things.

John Donvan
I, I understand that there’s that problem with that question, is who can predict the future, but, um, it, it is a question that I think, uh… It, it’s at the core of let’s deescalate here, uh, on the part of the Biden administration. Michael, same question to you. I mean, are there high odds that this thing would spin out of control, or by your analysis, is it quite containable?

Michael Doran
I believe it is containable. I believe that the, uh, that d- deterring Iran, which is what we’re talking about, is, is the key to preventing the wider war, the, the sort of global escalation that you’re talking about. What Iran has done in this conflict, uh, is it has, um, hung out its shingle to Beijing and to Russia, and said, uh… For example, to Beijing it said, “Look, if you wanna launch a war against Taiwan, to take Taiwan, we can be of great service to you, because we can pull all of these American naval assets back into the Indian Ocean and, and tie them down while, while you’re busy on Taiwan.” The weak link in the axis of China, Russia, Iran is Iran. Iran has enormous vulnerabilities. It has no regular air force to speak of. It has no regular military to speak of. It has its nuclear program, its nuclear weapons program, and it h- which is a threat. It’s the weak link, and if we take it out, the, then, then Russia and China will have no asset, uh, to deploy in the Middle East.

Shira Efron
If I can… Sorry, John. I just wanna say, when-

John Donvan
Please go ahead.

Shira Efron
I apologize. I just… When we say, “Take it out,” the surest way (laughs) to take out anything that has to do with Iran is occupy Iran, and no one is planning to do this, and this is where I’m, we can achieve damage. We cannot destroy Iranian nuclear capabilities. We’re in the process of ruin- destroying their proxies, which is extremely important and a major asset. But we cannot destroy their, um, um, ca- complete capabilities, nuclear capabilities at the moment. And we could definite- we cannot change their behavior. Um, u- doi- do- doing, I think, what Mike is proposing. And this is the real challenge. How do we change Iranian intent and behavior?

John Donvan
You know, we’re in a situation now where with Israel’s war in Gaza, Israel is facing more global isolation and criticism, probably than it ever has, including in the United States. There’s more, uh, anti-Israel sentiment, uh, publicly expressed than there ever has been in, certainly in my lifetime. What would be the impact of a strike in Iran on that dynamic? What… Michael, and, and does it matter? I, I, I… My, my sense is, Michael, you would say that’s a price that has to be paid, but does it matter?

Michael Doran
The, the anti-Israeli sentiment that is being expressed in the United States is the product of about three decades of pr- progressive indoctrination at our institutions of higher education. So, the, um, this is, these people are ideologically opposed to Isr- to, uh, to Israel. It, it, it… They are not reacting to something that Israel is doing. They are preprogrammed to criticize Israel. The support for Israel in the American, uh, society writ large is very high. The, the, um, the, uh, uh, the, the main locus of the kind of feeling you’re talking about, the main locus, is the, i- is the, the progressive wing of the Democratic party and the institutions of, of, um, uh, of higher education.

This is something that we should be concerned about, I mean as a society, because we have terr- We have, uh, we have professors s- uh, uh, inculcating students in support for terrorist organizations that are opposed to the United States, preprogrammed to criticize Israel. The support for Israel in the American, uh, society writ large is very high. The main locus of the kinda feeling you’re talking about i- is the, the progressive wing of the Democratic party and the institutions of, of higher education. This is something that we should be concerned about, I mean as a society, because we have professors i- inculcating students in support for terrorist organizations that are opposed to the United States. This is not-

John Donvan
So your-

Michael Doran
This is-

John Donvan
Your feeling-

Michael Doran
… not a healthy-

John Donvan
Y- your f- Your feeling is that-

Michael Doran
This is-

John Donvan
… a, a strike on Iran would, would potentially give them more confirmation of their views, but that that, that that’s, th- that that’s just a given. Those, th- uh, holding those views is just a given, that th- there wouldn’t be a broader turn of the tide against Israel among the larger American public?

Michael Doran
It w- You know, when someone says, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” that’s not the beginning of a discussion about, about a better policy.

John Donvan
Mm-hmm. And, and what about globally, in terms of, um, uh, say, say your, your vision of, of this thing would, were to come to pass. The US, uh, greenlights and potentially even participates in an attack on Iran. Uh, does the US have allies other than Israel in that sort of action?

Michael Doran
Uh, it, it has tacit allies. The… Everyone in the Middle East that is a part of the American alliance system is disturbed by the rise of Iran in the, uh, under the Biden administration and the impunity in which Iran shoots ballistic missiles at neighbors. It’s not just at Israel that they’re shooting these, uh, these, these ballistic missiles. They don’t… They don’t have the capabilities themselves to do anything about it. One of… But one of the interesting stories about the, about the wars over the last year is the absence of any kind of really serious opposition to it from our Gulf allies. They’re just sitting on the sidelines watching. Uh, they occasionally make, uh, statements, uh, from, through their foreign ministries, about concern for the welfare of Gazans and so on, but they’re not agitating for the United States to step in and do, and, and shut Israel down. They’re not agi- they’re not a- activating the Europeans to try to, uh, to, to try to work against Israel.

It’s really a remarkable change in the Middle East, that, uh, you know, uh, uh, Prime Minister Netanyahu in his speech at the UN, he held up the, the, the, the two different pictures of the Middle East, the, the, the, the blessing and the curse of the Middle East. Uh, he’s not wrong. It’s… But what’s, what’s, what’s, uh, what’s amazing is that it’s the United States. It’s the job of the United States to present that picture to the world, and to say, to, to present a picture of a, a, a, a, of a proper order in the Middle East, and, uh, and the United States is the leader of a coalition to restrain all of the worst pathologies of the region. The United States is not performing its role.

John Donvan
Shira-

Shira Efron
Can I-

John Donvan
… do you wanna comment on that? Yeah, please do.

Shira Efron
Yeah, yeah. I, I want, I wanna respond to a few, uh, to your two previous questions if, if it’s okay, and I’ll also go back to something-

John Donvan
Yeah.

Shira Efron
… that, uh, Netanyahu said, actually at Congress. He said that the Israeli actions, uh, help keep American boots off the ground in the Middle East. And in fact, this is not the case. What we’re seeing is more American troops on the ground now after October 7th, and I th- and, and, and if we follow what Mike is suggesting, there’ll be more and more American troops. And I think this, um, will strengthen, uh, opposition to US, uh, even among mainstream Americans. And I agree with Mike, that we see, uh, we see growing antisemitism on both sides, on the extreme left and the extreme right, but mainstream Americans are there, but I think if we’re starting, gonna start seeing American, uh, die on behalf of something they, they interpreted as a result of an Israeli action, uh, this will be very severe.

I’ll also, also say something that as you know, and we can argue all the time about US policy, but what Israel has, uh s- uh, uh sought to do throughout the years, until recently, is to maintain bipartisan, uh, support for Israel. This is a key. If I think of one strategic pillar of Israel in national security is the bipartisan support. If it looks, in the, in the United States, as if the prime minister of Israel interfered, uh, in the elections, and that being pro-Israel makes you lose the elections, that will be very dangerous for Israel long term.

Now, I think on the regional partners, and you know, being here in Israel, we feel the embargoes, and we feel the BDS, and the kind of like silent boycott. No one wants to deal with Israel. Why we need the… Do we need the headache? So it’s not, uh, explicit, but it’s more implicit. Uh, but it’s there. But also, when we talk about the region, you know, maybe the region is not telling the US n- to stop, or Israeli to stop, but the fact is that we’re seeing Saudi Arabia. We saw, uh, uh, a visit by Iranian, uh, by the Iranians and Saudi Arabia two days ago. There’s normalization between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Bahrain and Iran, which is not something that I had thought I’d see before. They want a deescalation. All these countries in the region want deescalation, and maybe, uh, the, the peace agreements with Israel have not been broken yet, and I hope they never will be, but if you look at ties, uh, between Israel and Egypt now, ties between Israel and, and, and Jordan, a normalization that is m- much, much farther away than it was on October 6th.

Um, I think for the region, uh, this dynamic is very, very dangerous, and ve- very, uh, and, and stands in counter to what both Biden said he wants to do and what Trump did do, uh, furthering regional integration.

John Donvan
Let’s move on now to our closing round, and those are closing statements from each of you. Michael, you’re up first. Once again, you’re making the argument that Israel should strike Iran. One more time to tell us why, please.

Michael Doran
Uh, John, in, in the last 10 years, there have been two conceptions in Washington about how to deal with Iran. One conception says that the United States needs to lead a coalition, uh, uh, uh, of allies in the region that poses a credible military threat to Iran. That military threat can come either directly from the United States or from American allies, uh, but the credible American military threat needs to be there in order to, uh, contain the potential escalation, uh, that could come, uh, from a, uh, simply an allied attack that isn’t Is- Israeli, uh, attack.

The other conception says that the, what we should do is pull American troops out of the Middle East and engage Iran diplomatically, um, show Iran that we have no intention of attacking it in any way. That was the, that’s the conception that the, uh, Biden administration inherited from the Obama administration. Uh, it’s been pursuing it aggressively, uh, since, uh, uh, since it came to power. It’s continued to pursue it even after our, uh, um, even after October 7th. I think that we can now see that this, uh, that this approach, engaging Iran diplomatically, um, uh, shielding it from direct attack, it doesn’t work. It do- It simply, it simply doesn’t work. I think very rarely in history do we have two rival conceptions like this which are tested, and shown to be so clearly… Uh, and one is shown to be so clearly inadequate.

I think we just have to bite the bullet and understand that the r- that the source of all of the disruptions, the major source of all the disruptions in the Middle East is, is Iran, and the only way to, uh, the only way to, um, to, uh, to end those disruptions is by deterring it militarily.

John Donvan
Thank you, Michael. Shira, you get the final word in this debate. You get the closing statement that comes second, and that is the final word. Once again, you are telling us that, uh, Israel should not strike Iran, at least in the terms that Michael is arguing. Please tell us why.

Shira Efron
Right. I, um, I am in favor of, um, uh, a credible threat on Iranian, uh, nuclear, uh, sites, and, um, my argument is not that Israel should not attack Iran now, and a c- and, and extract a cost from Iran now, but this should be, uh, limited, more meaningful than it was after the April 14th attack, but limited, and demonstrative, and contained in a way that, uh, helps Israel achieve its goal. It’s not just Israel, obviously, I- I- Israel and the United States achieve their goal of degrading Iranian, uh, capabilities, eliminating the, the ring of proxies, uh, that Iran has, uh, circled Israel with, and not just Israel, a lot of American friends, uh, in the region, and for that, we need a much more strategic, uh, um… We need a strategy.

The fact that we s- we see now as a window of opportunity to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, this is not how such a complex issue should be managed. There needs to be a holistic idea of how do we create an effective, uh, sanction regime? How do we, uh, speak with one voice when we talk about a credible military threat, if Iran moves to, to another threshold, which, which it hasn’t crossed yet according to all the intelligence and, uh, all the material out there that at least I’m, uh, familiar with. And, uh, bolstering defenses and, and creating a, a, a regional coalition of American friends.

Um, you know, we are now in October 2024. We’re, we’re all… I’m sitting in Tel Aviv. We’re all thinking and reflecting back on October 2023, but we have to look at October 2025. This is when the sunset, uh, on the JCPOA, uh, snapback sanctions, uh, are gonna disappear. Basically, the sunset is gonna come into effect, and we need to, to make sure that in October 2025, Iran is locked in a situation where it must make a choice not to break into a problem.

John Donvan
Thank you very much, Shira. And that is a wrap on this debate, so I wanna say thank you to Michael Duran and Dr. Shira Efron. We so appreciate, uh, that you came to the table together, that you heard each other out, and that in short, you were what we call being Open to Debate. Michael, Shira, thanks so much for joining us.

Shira Efron
Thank you very much.

Michael Doran
Thanks a lot, John. Thanks, Shira. It was a lot of fun.

John Donvan
And I also wanna thank all of you, our audience, for tuning into this episode of Open to Debate. You know, uh, we are a nonprofit that is working to combat extreme polarization through civil debate, and our work is made possible by listeners like you and by the Rosenkranz Foundation, and by supporters of Open to Debate.

Robert Rosenkranz is our chairman. Our CEO is Clea Connor. Lia Matthow is our chief content officer. Elizabeth Kitzenberg is our chief advancement officer. This episode was produced by Jessica Glazer. Editorial and research by Gabriella Mayer and Andrew Foote. Andrew Lipson and Max Fulton provided production support. The Open to Debate team also includes Gabrielle Iannucelli, Rachel Kemp, Eric Gross, and Linda Lee. Damon Whittemore mixed this episode. Our theme music is by Alex Clement, and I’m John Donvan. We’ll see you next time on Open to Debate.