A military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities would likely not be a singular event but mark the start of a protracted campaign involving military strikes, covert operations and economic pressure according to the Washington Institute think tank.
Outlining the challenges facing policymakers considering such action, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy argued that such an action would be the opening round of a long campaign built upon decades of covert efforts and will escalate in pace and intensity.
"A preventive attack is unlikely to be a solitary event, but rather the opening round of a long campaign employing military strikes, covert action, as well as economic, informational, and other elements of national power," the report said.
The research, written by Michael Eisenstadt, said that a successful preventive strike against Iran's nuclear program requires: eliminating materials and facilities, enabling covert rebuilding disruption, securing political support, and crafting a post-strike strategy to deter Iran from rebuilding.
However, the threat of military action could prompt Iran to hide materials, complicating future strikes. It also risks pushing Iran to abandon its current nuclear hedging strategy and accelerate weaponization.
Eisenstadt suggested that the preparatory phase has already begun, citing Israel's airstrikes targeting Iranian radar systems in April and October 2024, which weakened air defenses around key nuclear and missile sites.
"A lengthy campaign would be required because key installations associated with Iran’s nuclear program are located at over a half-dozen sites," the report said, noting that some are hardened and buried, making complete destruction unlikely.
According to the research, Israeli leaders view Iran's current vulnerability as an opportunity to degrade its nuclear capabilities. "Many Israelis believe that Iran’s current weakness provides a unique opportunity to destroy, or at least set back, its nuclear program through a military strike".
US President Donald Trump has reaffirmed his position that "Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon," expressing readiness for diplomatic engagement but suggesting military action as a last resort. He said there are "two ways of stopping [Iran], with bombs or with a written piece of paper."
The report also warned of Iran’s likely response to a possible attack, saying that it could range from measured retaliations to severe escalation, including potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) or further restrictions on the UN nuclear watchdog's operations in the country.
"Tehran might feel a need to respond massively to a preventive strike, although recent setbacks inflicted by Israel on its proxy forces and missile production capability may limit its ability to do so. It could also respond by withdrawing from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and expelling International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors," it added.
In 2023, Iran already banned at least one third of inspectors with the UN's nuclear chief voicing frustration at Iran's intransigence.
Eisenstadt also highlighted Iran's resilience, warning that following a strike, Iran would likely attempt to rebuild its nuclear capabilities, potentially hiding clandestine facilities in civilian areas or deeply buried sites believed to be beyond the reach of Israel or the United States.
"Thus, in the aftermath of a strike, Iran will likely try to rebuild, perhaps hiding small clandestine centrifuge-enrichment and weaponization facilities in plain sight (e.g., in residential areas or civilian industrial parks), or more likely, in hardened, deeply buried facilities which it believes are beyond the reach of Israel or the United States."
It is not the first time experts warn of Iran's resilience. Last month, Sina Azodi, an expert on US-Iran relations, told the Eye for Iran podcast that Iran can easily rebuild nuclear facilities hit by air attacks.
"Once you know how to make a car, it doesn't matter how many times you get into a car accident. You can still rebuild it," he said.
The potential for clandestine rebuilding necessitates "follow-on covert action and military strikes to disrupt and delay efforts to rebuild" in the years following an initial attack, according to the Washington Institute report.
The analysis concluded that if diplomacy fails to dismantle Iran's nuclear program, policymakers must weigh the risks of a nuclear-threshold Iran against military intervention. While a strike risks triggering nuclear proliferation, it may also enable the long-term containment of a weakened Iran, Eisenstadt argued.
He said that fearing a change in its leadership, which US assurances may not alleviate, Iran might retaliate more aggressively and accelerate its nuclear program after a preventive strike.
