Daniel Shapiro, a deputy assistant secretary of defense under the Biden administration, U.S. ambassador to Israel under the Obama administration and senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, said in an interview with Jewish Insider on Friday morning that Israel’s strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely halt any further efforts toward a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear program. 

Shapiro also said that major questions ahead for the region will be if and under what circumstances the U.S. would directly join Israeli strikes on Iran, and whether the strikes prompt Iran to attempt to make a sprint to a nuclear bomb.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Jewish Insider: What are your biggest takeaways from these strikes?

Shapiro: These strikes lay bare the depth of Iran’s miscalculation following Oct. 7. Just stack it up: their top proxy in Lebanon, Hezbollah, is gone or deeply damaged. The Assad regime has gone. Their own state-to-state attacks against Israel in April and October were pretty ineffective, and then Israel did significant damage in response last October. 

But since the state-to-state taboo has been broken, Israel demonstrated last night that it has full penetration of the Iranian system and the ability to wreak havoc across the system. Iran really has never looked weaker, and its ability to respond meaningfully is going to be tested. 

So far, they haven’t mustered a very effective response. I’m sure they will. They will continue to respond, but the first wave of 100 or so UAVs was not very effective. 

Now the story doesn’t end here. Israel’s already conducting additional attacks. Iran is going to be very motivated to try to sprint to a nuclear breakout at one of their hardened underground facilities. And the United States, I’m sure, is going to assist Israel with defense against any retaliation. 

But the prospect of a diplomatic resolution that President Trump very much wanted, that would end Iranian enrichment, I think, is pretty much dead, and it’s more likely that he’ll be faced with a decision on whether to use the U.S. capabilities to destroy Iran’s underground nuclear facilities and to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. 

So that’s a big decision that may be still ahead, and could be the type of dilemma that splits his advisors, his political base, and probably will raise accusations from some corners that Israel is trying to drag the United States into the war.

JI: Let’s say the U.S. doesn’t get involved and doesn’t strike those facilities … What are the implications of that?

DS: The United States has unique capabilities to deal with the underground, deeply hardened sites. It could mean, if the United States is not involved, that those sites survive and are the place where Iran would be, if they chose, trying to execute their nuclear breakout.

That doesn’t mean that’s the only way to address those sites, and so if Israel is intent on really eliminating any threat of a nuclear Iran, it may turn to other methods … I think it’s going to be probably a very intense conversation between Netanyahu and Trump about the pros and cons of U.S. participation.

JI: Do you think that this is going to prompt Iran to move to nuclear breakout?

DS: I think they’re going to be very motivated to try to sprint to a breakout. They’ve often always seen their nuclear program as a pillar of the regime’s survival … If they’re looking for a way to gain a deterrent that would preserve what can be preserved, there’d be a strong case within their system to try to sprint to achieve a nuclear weapon. But there’s also chaos in their leadership right now, because so many of the top leaders were killed last night. So I don’t think that’s a decision that’s necessarily being made immediately.

JI: As we’re looking ahead to potential Iranian retaliation, [how do you think] some of the other states in the region are going to respond? So far, it seems like Jordan [intercepted some] of that first wave of drones … Do you think we’ll see the same sort of coordinated regional response effectively in defense of Israel like we saw last April?

DS: I think countries will act to defend their own airspace and their own assets. I think generally, they will not want to be advertised as participating in a defense of Israel, per se. But that doesn’t mean, even in defending their own airspace, they don’t in some way participate. … 

But I think most of the countries want to distance themselves from this action … They want to not give Iran any motivation or excuse to attack them or to associate them with the strikes … I suspect in private rooms, there’s probably some cheering going on in Arab capitals when they’ve seen the extent of the damage to the Iranian military.

JI: How do you read the response we’ve been seeing from the Trump administration so far?

DS: I think President Trump wanted more time to pursue his diplomatic initiative and to try to reach an agreement. And so I think this was not his preference to have this action take place this soon. 

However, it’s inconceivable Israel didn’t provide some forewarning, and if he didn’t give a firm red light, he probably gave sort of a yellow light. Israel may have argued that Iran was taking, or had taken, or was on the verge of taking some new steps that would shorten the already very short distance to nuclear breakout, or would advance their weaponization research. …

The initial statement from Secretary Rubio was intended to make clear that the United States was not a direct participant, and to try to dissuade Iran from responding in any way against the United States, and to warn them that if they did, it would be a very, very heavy price. …

The big question ahead, as I mentioned at the beginning, is, would the United States, under any circumstances, participate in strikes against Iran? And if so, what would be the trigger for that? Would it be the appearance that Iran is trying to do a nuclear breakout at the Fordow facility? Would it be in response to any kind of Iranian action against U.S. bases?

JI: In an alternate history where Joe Biden or Kamala Harris are in the White House, how do you think they would have handled this? Would they have given the same “yellow light?”

DS: I think it’s impossible to answer the hypothetical without knowing more about the information that Israel may have presented.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee advanced Gov. Mike Huckabee’s nomination to be U.S. ambassador to Israel on a party-line vote on Wednesday, committee chair Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) said.

The vote, which took place about a week after Huckabee’s confirmation hearing, suggests that Huckabee is likely to see minimal Democratic support when he comes to the Senate floor in the coming weeks, although Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) has said he’s likely to support Huckabee.

“With the passage of these three qualified nominees, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has now approved the nomination of 10 of President Trump’s national security nominees,” Risch said in a statement. “We will do all we can to keep up this quick pace to ensure President Trump and Secretary Rubio have the support they need. I urge my colleagues to confirm these qualified nominees when they come to the Senate floor.”

Huckabee’s past comments opposing a two-state solution, supporting Israeli annexation of the West Bank and denying the existence of Palestinians, among others, have made him controversial even among some of the most pro-Israel Democrats in the Senate.

“We need an ambassador to Israel that strengthens the relationship between our two nations while making sure our support for our democratic ally remains bipartisan,” Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV), a member of the committee said in a statement. 

“While I appreciate Governor Huckabee’s deep commitment to Israel’s security, I have grave concerns about his support for fully annexing the West Bank, and I have serious doubts about his ability to ensure that support for Israel remains bipartisan and doesn’t become a political football,” Rosen continued. “For these reasons, I opposed his nomination as U.S. Ambassador to Israel. However, if he is confirmed, I am committed to developing a relationship with Governor Huckabee and working with him to maintain a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.”

The nomination has also divided Jewish community groups.

Huckabee’s confirmation vote may be on track to echo the confirmation of the former Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, President Donald Trump’s pick in his first term, who received just two Democratic votes in support in 2017 amid similar concerns from most Democrats.

Some committee Democrats initially attempted to delay or prevent a vote on Huckabee’s nomination until Thursday, but were blocked by Republicans.