The Edge of Intervention: US Role in Operation ‘Am Kalavi’

As operation “Am Kalavi” unfolds between Israel and Iran, growing attention is directed toward the potential role of the United States. Although Washington provides strong political and military support to Israel, the prospect of direct American involvement remains uncertain. The United States’ strategic interest in preventing a nuclear-armed Iran must be weighed against the risks of escalation and diplomatic backlash.

Since the mid-twentieth century, the United States has alternated between direct military interventions and indirect engagement. It deployed large-scale ground forces in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In contrast, more recent conflicts, including those in Syria, Libya, and Ukraine, have been marked by indirect involvement through intelligence sharing, arms transfers, and financial assistance, while avoiding direct engagement. Hence, this reflects a strategic posture aimed at minimizing exposure while advancing national and allied interests.

In the current operation, Israel benefits from enhanced American support, including real-time intelligence, aerial refueling, and advanced missile defense systems. Of course, these capabilities enhance the operational reach of the Israel Defense Forces and strengthen defensive measures against long-range threats. Nevertheless, the critical question remains whether such assistance will suffice to achieve Israel’s principal objective: the destruction of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Certain targets, particularly the fortified Fordo enrichment facility located deep within a mountain, may lie beyond the reach of Israeli conventional munitions. Currently, only the United States possesses the ‘Massive Ordnance Penetrator’, a weapon capable of neutralizing such hardened sites. Without the transfer of this capability, along with the necessary technical guidance, Israel may be unable to eliminate Iran’s most secure nuclear assets.

Although the European Union and other allies broadly support efforts to prevent a nuclear Iran, direct US military involvement would entail considerable geopolitical risks. Russia, for example, could respond with diplomatic pressure, particularly at a time when Washington seeks cautious normalization of relations with Moscow. In this context, the US administration may prefer to avoid overt intervention to limit international fallout.

Indeed, the prospect of sudden direct involvement by the US in a potential Israeli-Iranian war remains. Should Iran target American assets in the region, more assertive measures could become necessary. In that case, Washington’s broader security interests, shared by European and Gulf partners, may justify deeper engagement. However, such a scenario appears unlikely, given the effectiveness of Israel’s current military operations, which have significantly constrained Iran’s options.

Therefore, based on our findings, the United States is expected to remain a vital strategic enabler of Israel’s campaign by supplying advanced capabilities, including bunker-penetrating ordnance. Whether these weapons will be employed by US forces or transferred for use by Israel will depend on American political considerations.

——————————————

The above was coauthored by Prof. Arie Reich and Igor Klotsman. Prof. Arie Reich is the Vice Rector of Bar Ilan University and an expert on International Law and Mr. Igor Klotsman is a doctoral student in the Bar Ilan University Faculty of Law.