June 16, 2025

SHARE |

The Implications of Israel’s Attacks on Iran

AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean

On Thursday, claiming U.S. talks with Iran would not halt what Israel views as an inexorable Iranian march toward constructing working nuclear weapons, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu implemented longstanding plans to try to militarily decapitate Iran’s military and nuclear program leadership and destroy key Iranian nuclear and missile sites. Israel’s onslaught caught the Iranian regime off guard. Tehran did not expect such a bold move amid ongoing nuclear negotiations. However, the Israeli operation was well-coordinated, involving assets on the ground and targeting key leadership figures within Iran’s military and scientific community. The strikes bore a resemblance to Israel’s past campaigns against Hezbollah—this time, focused directly on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard leadership and command infrastructure.

Iran has learned from past confrontations. Previously, Tehran exercised what it called “strategic patience,” restraining its proxies and avoiding direct escalation with Israel. That policy is now widely viewed within the Iranian regime as a grave miscalculation—especially following its failure to respond forcefully to the assassination of senior figures like Hezbollah’s longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah. As for Hezbollah—if it still retains meaningful operational capacity—the question looms: will it now fully enter the war? For Iran and its network of allies, the moment of decision may be fast approaching. It could be now—or never. Now, Iran faces the same strategy it once employed—only in reverse. Its proxies have been systematically degraded, and the fight has reached Iranian soil. The regime now stands at a crossroads: will continued reliance on restraint preserve its rule, or will it hasten its downfall, as history has shown with others?

This time, Iran’s retaliation has been more capable and destructive than in previous rounds. Unlike earlier responses that relied on weapons easily intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome and allied defense systems, Iran reportedly used advanced ballistic missiles that penetrated Israeli defenses, causing what has been described as "unprecedented destruction" in several major cities. Iran’s precision strikes hit the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) headquarters in Tel Aviv. Still, Iran’s news agency released a statement stating that the Iranian military had still not used its most advanced and strategic weapons in operations against Israel. If true, it indicates that Tehran could be preparing for a sustained conflict.

Although Netanyahu’s action was precipitated by a shift in the balance of power in Israel’s favor over the past year, he justified the assault as a necessary self-defense measure. The weakening of Hezbollah and the downfall of the Assad regime in Syria contributed significantly to the aforementioned shift in the regional balance of power. Successive Israeli governments have described a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran’s regime as an “existential threat,” although a May 30 International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report found no evidence Iran was seeking to construct an actual nuclear weapon. Coming just ahead of a planned sixth round of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks scheduled for Muscat, Oman, on Sunday, the assault brushed aside months of Trump administration diplomacy aimed at forging an accord ensuring Iran’s nuclear program could only be used for peaceful purposes.

Initial Israeli air strikes and commando operations inside Iran killed more than a dozen top leaders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and nuclear program scientists who run Iran’s main uranium enrichment and processing facilities at Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan, and others. The Fordow enrichment site is largely underground, and Netanyahu, speaking to Fox News on Sunday, seemed to acknowledge Israel might not be militarily able to destroy the facility on its own. There are some voices inside the United States, including many Iran hawks, who believe that Washington should engage in joint strikes with Israel against Iran’s nuclear program. Despite no firm commitment from the Trump administration, Netanyahu appeared energized by the assault, framing it not merely as a strike against Iran’s nuclear program, but as the beginning of the end for the regime itself. His rhetoric went as far as calling on the Iranian people to rise up and reclaim their country, indicating that the objective may go beyond military deterrence and toward regime change.

Even as Tehran lost several of its most senior strategists in the initial Israeli assault, Iran immediately set out to implement Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s vow that Israel "will not escape unscathed for this crime.” Since Friday, Iran has launched several waves of ballistic missile attacks on Israel, each consisting of several dozen missiles, targeting military sites. However, some of the projectiles have avoided interception and struck civilian population sites, causing Israeli fatalities. Reacting to the retaliation, and suggesting Israel’s intent goes beyond destroying Iran’s strategic sites to an effort to destabilize Iran’s regime, on Saturday, Netanyahu addressed the “people of Iran,” urging them to “stand up and let your voices be heard,” as he cautioned that more attacks were on the way. Israel has been expanding its target set to include economic infrastructure facilities, such as the highly productive South Pars gas field, as well as oil refineries outside Tehran, leaving many concerned for a spike in global energy prices.

The Israeli decision to undertake a military campaign against Iran has presented Trump officials, as well as regional and global leaders, with significant uncertainty about the future of the region. Other than predicting that their attacks might cause Iran’s regime to collapse - an outcome Western strategists consider unlikely - Israeli leaders have not detailed any plan to bring the conflict to an end or prevent it from expanding. Trump’s team assesses that de-escalating the conflict depends on a U.S. effort to translate the destruction Israel has visited on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure into a new nuclear accord. A successful diplomatic effort by Trump officials might not only de-escalate but also set the stage for Iran’s full re-integration into the region and the broader global community. Iran’s reintegration would necessarily entail the lifting of the comprehensive U.S. sanctions that have caused significant economic hardship for the Iranian people.

In the immediate aftermath of Israel’s initial strikes, Trump set the U.S. strategic direction by asserting the sixth round of talks should proceed, as planned, on Sunday. In doing so, he sought to use the Israeli attack as leverage to pressure Iran to offer key concessions, saying in his first comments after the Israeli strikes: “Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire.” Trump appears to be calculating that Israeli attacks will compel Iran to accept the U.S. demands it rejected through five rounds of U.S.-Iran talks held since April 12 – that Iran’s uranium enrichment program be dismantled. U.S. Special Envoy for the Middle East Steven Witkoff offered to hold the Sunday talks in Muscat, as scheduled, but Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi informed Omani officials that Iran would not attend the meeting. However, suggesting it is willing to pursue the diplomacy, Araghchi has informed Witkoff that Iran is willing to meet again if Trump officials are able to compel Israel to cease its attacks on Iran. The Trump administration is hoping that Iran might ultimately accept Trump’s “zero enrichment” demands if Israel continues to strike key nuclear and missile infrastructure targets.

Should Iran shun further diplomacy, the U.S. and the region could face high levels of conflict for months to come. Iranian leaders appear conscious of the risks of escalation, and in particular the potential for Iran to provoke conflict with the U.S.  Iranian officials have supported a decision by the Supreme Leader to retaliate exclusively, for now, against Israel, in an effort to restore deterrence. Iran is believed to possess more than 3,000 ballistic missiles capable of hitting Israel, and it will likely continue to launch missile barrages in an effort to cause sufficient damage and panic that the Israeli public will pressure the Netanyahu government to cease its attacks. To date, Iran’s barrages have been mostly intercepted by Israel’s layered missile and rocket defenses, such as the Arrow and the Iron Dome, assisted by U.S. air defense systems such as the Patriot and Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD). But, those missiles that have avoided interception have forced many Israelis to take shelter repeatedly, disrupting daily life. Israel has vowed to continue its air campaign nonetheless, indicating that, despite the lethality of Iran’s recent barrages, Tehran has not yet restored deterrence.

Iran also has the option of expanding its attacks to U.S. and U.S.-allied targets. Expressing the Trump Administration intent to avoid become embroiled in the Israel-Iran conflict, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, issued a statement Thursday night on behalf of the Administration, saying Israel’s action was “unilateral,” adding “We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.” Iranian leaders have always sought to avoid direct conflict with the U.S., but, despite Rubio and other U.S. statements, top Iranian officials have accused Trump and his aides of complicity in Israel’s campaign. Their accusations were based on comments by Trump and his aides acknowledging Israel had informed U.S. officials, in advance, of its intent to strike. And, the U.S. military has acknowledged helping Israel intercept Iran’s retaliatory missile barrages.

Iran has thus far confined its retaliation to Israel, but its leaders have continued to threaten attacks on bases in the Arab Gulf states that host U.S. forces. U.S. officials have sought to prepare for that possibility by moving additional air defense and other assets to the Gulf. Still, the disincentives for Iran to expand its retaliatory campaign to U.S. or U.S.-linked targets far outweigh the potential benefits for Iranian policymakers. On the other hand, should Trump respond to Israeli appeals to join the offensive, particularly by using U.S. “bunker-buster” munitions or commandos to destroy the hardened nuclear site at Fordow, Iranian leaders might implement their threats to retaliate against U.S. targets. Seeking to focus on the diplomatic option rather than risk expanding the conflict, Trump has rejected the Israeli request to attack Fordow, according to Israeli media. Iran hawks in the U.S. are ramping up pressure on the President to use the “bunker buster” option at Fordow. In the early morning hours on Monday, rumors swirled online that the magnitude 2.5 earthquake caused by an Israeli airstrike near Qom was the Fordow nuclear facility being struck, although other indicators pointed to an ammunition storage site being struck.

A key question is the potential for the Israel-Iran conflict to draw other regional states into the conflict. U.S. allies in the Middle East, including virtually all of the Arab states, have publicly condemned the Israeli air offensive. But, as they did in 2024, several - including Jordan and Saudi Arabia - have quietly assisted U.S. and Israeli efforts to thwart the Iranian missile launches. The Arab Gulf states have significantly improved relations with Iran over the past several years and fear a regional war will deter the foreign investment on which their economic diversification programs depend. Several Gulf leaders have spoken with Iranian leaders to try to de-escalate the warfare, reportedly by encouraging Iran to accept Trump’s terms for a nuclear agreement. But many regional leaders privately welcome Iran’s weakening and would prefer the Israeli campaign conclusively end Iran’s nuclear program—or even its regime—rather than produce inconclusive, indefinite warfare.

Some experts fear Iran’s Supreme Leader is willing to employ methods and actors beyond missile and drones in order to re-establish deterrence and drive a wedge between Israel and the Trump administration. Iran’s Axis of Resistance partners, including the Houthi movement in Yemen and Lebanese Hezbollah, have been weakened but are still able to add pressure on Israel through their remaining missile and rocket arsenals. On Saturday, the Houthis launched another missile at Israel, which was intercepted. Iran also retains a large network of IRGC and Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS) operatives in Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere, who have sought to recruit agents in the U.S. itself for terrorist attacks and assassinations. Iran also has built a large cyber-attack infrastructure that the regime might put to use against the U.S. or its allies.

Strategically, Iran might appeal to its larger partners, Russia and China, for assistance with air defense or other capabilities with which it could pressure Israel more consistently. However, the two major powers are likely hesitant to risk their relations with the Trump administration to help Iran, and both have limited their reactions to condemnation of the Israeli assault. While Israel initiated this escalation unilaterally, it appears to have done so without meaningful coordination with its key allies, most notably the United States. This lack of international alignment could prove costly. Netanyahu may soon find himself facing a protracted conflict with rising domestic discontent, as daily barrages take a toll on Israel’s economy, infrastructure, and public morale. The Iranian regime, meanwhile, knows that, in such a conflict, its vast geography gives it strategic depth that Israel lacks. For the Iranian regime, victory equals survival. For Netanyahu, who has openly defined success as regime change in Tehran, the bar is far higher—and arguably far less achievable. This is where the conflict now stands: open-ended, escalatory, and unpredictable in its regional and global consequences.