Overview
One week has passed since the longstanding “shadow war” between Israel and Iran went abruptly hot. Israel is making the most of a moment when Iran is historically weak, while the Iranian regime is attempting - unsuccessfully - to show the region, and its own people, that its capabilities are not too degraded (nor its government too infiltrated by Israeli intelligence) to let Israel’s attacks go unpunished. President Trump is holding the key to the resolution of the conflict and, following days of mixed messages, has increased the pressure on Iran, signaling the US may join in on Israel’s attacks, unless Iran “totally surrenders.” Israel, for its part, is actively trying to draw the US into the conflict: persuading the US to deploy its heavy bomber fleets to drop ground-penetrating ordinance on Iran’s most protected nuclear sites, mainly Fordow, is what Israel covets. The big question of whether the US will join in or not – the decisive question in determining the trajectory of the conflict in the coming days and weeks - remains unanswered at this time. However, in an X post yesterday, the White House shared a message from President Trump in which he states that “based on the fact that there’s a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.”
How It Started
On June 13, Israel initiated Operation Rising Lion, a coordinated military strike targeting Iran’s nuclear sites, missile infrastructure, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) command posts, and senior military and scientific figures. Intelligence and Mossad-assessed reconnaissance preceded the operation, including covert drone sabotage of Iran’s air-defense and missile systems—an unprecedented hybrid of espionage and aerial warfare that demonstrates significant Israeli intelligence penetration.
Approximately 200 Israeli aircrafts delivered over 330 munitions in five waves, striking around 100 strategic sites across Tehran, Natanz, Isfahan, and other areas. Among those killed were IRGC commanders such as Major Generals Hossein Salami and Mohammad Bagheri and several nuclear scientists (six named initially; later reports cite nine). The strikes hit Iran’s nuclear facilities (including Natanz, Iran’s main site for uranium enrichment), underground missile bunkers, oil and gas installations, and IRGC command hubs. Iran stated air defenses in key cities were also hit. Iran responded with coordinated missile and drone strikes on Israel, including cities like Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and Haifa. Roughly 350 Iranian missiles were launched and over 200 intercepted, causing around 24 Israeli fatalities and injuring hundreds. In Iran, civilian deaths are reported at 224 (some sources exceed 450), mostly from the strikes near infrastructure and urban areas.
Israel has been dominating the conflict, humiliating Iran by establishing air superiority within days and exposing the Islamic Republic’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities. Iran is almost powerless in defending strategic sites throughout the country against the Israeli Air Force’s (IAF) attacks. In an attack on Iranian targets on June 18, more than 50 IAF fighter jets were operating simultaneously in the Tehran skies.
Global and Regional Ramifications
The open warfare marks a new phase in direct Israel-Iran fighting, raising fears of a Middle East-wide confrontation. Gulf states have publicly condemned Israel’s “aggression” and have mobilized ceasefire diplomacy to contain the conflict, which has already disrupted global oil shipping lanes, pushing oil prices up 10% and impacting global markets and economic security. Iran’s regional proxies, mainly the Houthis in Yemen and Kata’ib Hizballah in Iraq, have vowed they will increase the pressure on Israel. Lebanese Hizballah seems deterred at this point – if not simply incapable of materially supporting Iran - and has not entered the fray.
Gulf states are caught in between a rock and a hard place: while Gulf monarchies express grave concern about regional stability and economic shockwaves, many (like Riyadh and the UAE) would prefer that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. At the same time, they are juggling recent efforts to establish a détente with Iran and, for the UAE and Bahrain, maintain lucrative and geopolitically significant ties with Israel. States like Oman and Qatar are openly attempting to reach ceasefire negotiations, with other Arab monarchies pressing behind the scenes for an end to the regional chaos. Gulf oil producers are terrified that Iran, with few options, will up the global ante by limiting navigability in the Strait of Hormuz, which will effectively cut off Gulf oil exports – an outcome that would rock the global oil market as it loses not only major producers but the majority of its slack in the form of excess production. Tehran may turn to Moscow and Beijing for economic relief and diplomatic legitimacy.
Nuclear diplomacy, ongoing if on the rocks at the time of Israel’s first attacks, has fractured. Iran threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non‑Proliferation Treaty, undermining international non‑proliferation regimes and complicating inspections. US–Iran nuclear talks have been derailed, with a scheduled sixth round of negotiations set to resume in June in Oman suspended, further delaying any diplomatic progress toward a new nuclear framework.
G7 leaders meeting in Alberta over the weekend endorsed Israel’s right to self-defense, pointed to Iran as a destabilizing actor, and urged that Iran be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. Diplomacy from UN, EU, and regional powers emphasizes containment, while German Chancellor Merz broke ranks as he expressed support for Israel’s attack stating “Israel is doing the dirty work” for the international community. Global markets reacted sharply: as mentioned above, oil surged 10%, equities dipped, and safe-haven assets (like gold bullion and the Swiss franc) spiked.
US–Israel Relations: Reinforcement and Tensions
The US has been publicly backing Israel’s attack. President Trump suggested Iran must be forced to the negotiating table only after full nuclear disarmament—a hard line approach. While the US did not officially join Israeli strikes, the US was forewarned in some capacity, and in the aftermath has shared intelligence and provided missile defense, helping to intercept Iranian missiles and drones. Interestingly, a disparity in intelligence assessments between the US and Israel has been reported. In contrast to Israel’s claim of an imminent threat emanating from Iran’s nuclear program, US media quoted DIA sources in Washington raising questions about the necessity and proportionality of the Israeli attack, opining Iran was “years away” from building a nuclear bomb,
Looking ahead, there is potential for greater US escalation – a possibility that the US is preparing for by transferring more military assets to the region. If Iran broadens its retaliation to target US facilities, American policy would have to pivot from air defense to direct military engagement—a catch-22 for a president that seeks to end Iranian nuclear proliferation and cannot leave threats to American assets unanswered, but also has no desire to become enmeshed in a drawn-out Middle Eastern conflict. The US may also proactively choose to enter the fray in a bid to help Israel achieve its goal of ending the Iranian nuclear program. As mentioned, US–Iran talks are now stalled with growing skepticism about remaining diplomatic channels. If that persists, it leaves nuclear non‑proliferation efforts in limbo.
What’s Next
Israel’s strike on Iran marks a watershed moment: the first overt, large-scale attack on Iranian soil. It shattered a longstanding covert stalemate and ushered in a volatile new phase of open military confrontation. The immediate outcome reveals substantial gains—for instance, the elimination of senior IRGC leadership, damage to missile networks, and an assertion of Israeli military resolve.
Broader consequences may include heavy civilian casualties in Iran and Israel, regional destabilization, with rising guard by Gulf states, threats of proxy and asymmetric escalation (as Iran likely still retains significant cyber capabilities, for example), and oil-market vulnerability. The US–Israel alliance has solidified politically, but exposed fissures over intelligence assessments, legal risk, and anxieties over deeper American entanglement remain. Meanwhile, the corridors of diplomacy for nuclear negotiations are closed, non‑proliferation frameworks are under strain, and multilateral justice institutions are scrutinizing actions.
Israel’s win condition in its offensive against Iran is the total elimination of Iran’s nuclear program. Skepticism abounds over whether that elimination is achievable by Israel, in part due to the likely necessity of American involvement to deliver bunker-busting bombs to Fordow (although analysts point to recent Israeli creativity to theorize that Israel may have a backup plan). Further, it is unclear whether even the total destruction of Iran’s physical infrastructure would stamp out the program, given the potential for residual human resources or Iran emerging from a conflict deeply battered but even more resolved to develop nuclear capability.
Another significant question mark remains the future stability of the Iranian regime. While some Western observers have floated the possibility that Israel is hoping for regime change, Jerusalem has in fact avoided striking Iranian political leaders – rightly assessing that such strikes would be seen as an existential threat to regime survival and create an even more desperate Tehran. It is simply too early to tell whether the degradation of Iran’s military and security apparatus will prompt, or allow, a popular uprising, coup, or regime collapse. For Israel, the US, and regional partners, however, Iran as a failed state may be even more dangerous than its current iteration.
If diplomatic frameworks do emerge to end the war with a negotiated settlement, the risk remains that miscalculation—for example involving US forces or Iran’s proxies—could restart the escalatory spiral and spark a broader conflict, especially given Iran’s degraded intelligence capacity. This moment forces the US and allies to assess whether the strategic benefit of halting Iran’s nuclear ambition outweighs the peril of unraveling the last threads of regional stability.
