Vulnerable is the word the latest reports are using in respect of Iran. The Times reckons that President-elect Trump will encounter an Iran whose nuclear program is more exposed and “vulnerable” to attack. That new reality is being marked by Israel’s former defense minister, Yoav Gallant, who is speaking of the question of military action against Iran’s nuclear capabilities in terms of strategic urgency.

Mr. Gallant contends there is  “a window to act against Iran” before Tehran is able to, as the Times puts it, “take the last few steps to producing a nuclear weapon.” Prime Minister Netanyahu himself is underscoring the time-sensitive nature of the opportunity when he tells the Wall Street Journal, as he did last week, that, after the strikes of October 26, the Iranians “were dumbfounded when we took out their critical air defenses.”

This is the context in which the incoming Trump administration is reportedly keeping on the table the option of a military strike on Iran. The mullahs might scoff. They’ve heard it before, after all, in respect of their dash for a bomb. Yet we are no longer in the first inning of Iran’s nuclear research, and one option President-elect Trump’s team is discussing now, therefore, is military strikes, the Journal reports. 

It’s encouraging that the Trump team is working with Israel on developing ideas for kinetic attacks. Years of denying arms like bunker buster bombs to the country most threatened by Iran has mocked Washington’s talk of “all options” being on the table. Israeli officials are telling military scribes that their air force is training for missions in Iran. Mr. Netanyahu said in July that on Iran’s nuclear threat he and Trump “see eye to eye.” 

Several events “turbocharge” the current talk of military action, as the Journal has put it. The fall of the Assad regime in Syria, the defeats Israel inflicted on Hamas and Hezbollah, and the degrading of Iran’s own air defenses have significantly weakened the Islamic Republic. At the same time, Americans and UN inspectors assess that Iran now has enough uranium enriched to 60 percent purity to produce 12 bombs.

Leaping to weapon-level 90 percent purity from there is as easy as turning on a light switch. Iranians are also using computer models to advance weaponization. A growing number of Iranian officials are urging Supreme Leader Khamenei to cross the atomic Rubicon. The string of Iranian losses might convince Tehran that a nuclear test is the only way to prevent the fall of the regime, and a fate worse than Mr. Assad’s exile at Moscow. 

So what to do? “Iran is flush with cash, credit, and sanctions relief from the Biden team, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars,” a close adviser to the President-elect, Richard Grenell, told our Benny Avni the other day, indicating that a new round of sanctions intended to suffocate the regime is around the corner. Meanwhile Mr. Netanayhu recently recorded a third video address to the Iranian people, encouraging the overthrow of the mullahs.  

Heavy sanctions and regime change are important but there is concern that they might take too long to bear fruit. Considering how close Iran is to an A-bomb, additional steps might be needed. Wary of an all-out war, Trump might use new economic and political pressures to cut a deal that would slow the dash for a bomb. Iranians, though, are adept at cheating on deals that they take forever to negotiate and sign. 

Which brings us back to bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities. The president-elect has shown he isn’t shy of using force. The collapse of Iran’s proxy army strategy owes much to America’s 2020 strike that killed its architect, Qassem Soleimani. No successor has his charisma or organizational skills. Iran has tried to kill Candidate Trump, while he says “anything is possible” to prevent a nuclear Iran. So the military option seems soon to be back on the table. 

We tend to discount the idea, often heard on the left, that President Trump is trigger happy. During Trump’s first term, he called off planned airstrikes on Iran in a move that showed remarkable  restraint. It reflected a Trump who is “more cautious than critics have assumed,” as the Times put it. Five years later, could the threat of attack prove an effective tactic — or have recent events changed Trump’s calculus?