There’s some reason to doubt the Sunday Times scoop about Israeli plans to hit the Iranian nuclear program with mini-nukes; apparently, reporter Uzi Mahnaimi has a “reporter who cried wolf” reputation. But there are a few things that ring true in the report. The targets mentioned, at Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak, are indeed the first things to hit if you want to cripple the program quickly. And the Natanz facilities are dug in enough that you need some sort of bunker-busting capability; my understanding is that the US has conventional bombs that can do the job, but it’s possible that the Israelis would indeed need a low-yield nuke. Obviously, breaking the nuclear taboo would have some worrisome implications; the point of the Israeli leak (if it’s authentic) may be to put pressure on the US. As Harvard wonk Jeffrey Lewis notes here, many argue that since we’ll get blamed for an Israeli strike anyway, and the USAF can do the job better than the Israelis, we might as well take the lead if the Israelis are determined to go ahead with a strike. On the other hand, perhaps there are some advantages to an Israel-only strike with an Osirik-style American response of public condemnation (and private relief).