Israel’s recent military operations targeting Iranian nuclear and military facilities have escalated tensions in the Middle East, potentially drawing the region closer to a larger conflict.
This action could also complicate U.S. diplomatic efforts aimed at negotiating a deal with Tehran regarding its nuclear program.
Following these strikes, Iran executed a series of retaliatory moves, firing approximately 100 drones toward Israel, most of which were intercepted.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that airstrikes would persist “for as many days as it takes.”
According to Javed Ali, a Middle East affairs expert from the University of Michigan and former senior official at the National Security Council under President Donald Trump, several factors contributed to Israel’s decision to launch strikes at this particular time.
One immediate catalyst was an International Atomic Energy Agency report indicating that Iran had made significant advancements in uranium enrichment, edging closer to the ability to produce weapons-grade material.
Netanyahu has publicly stated that intelligence suggests Iran is nearing a threshold that would enable it to develop nuclear weapons quickly.
Beyond this, the geopolitical landscape in the region has transformed significantly over the past year since the October 7, 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel.
The dynamics of Iran’s network of proxies—commonly referred to as the Axis of Resistance, including groups like Hamas and Hezbollah—are not as threatening to Israel as they were before the October attacks.
In previous years, a strike from Israel like the ones we are witnessing might have incited a widespread response from Iran’s proxies.
However, there has been little reaction following the latest Israeli strikes, largely due to the successful degradation of these groups’ military capabilities by Israel in recent operations.
The U.S. has also played a part in this with its own military initiatives targeting Houthi positions in Yemen.
Moreover, Israeli operations in April and October 2024 effectively weakened Iran’s ballistic missile and air defense systems, likely influencing Israel’s strategy for the recent strike.
According to Ali, the current favorable stance of the White House towards Israel under President Donald Trump also shaped Israel’s decision-making process.
While Washington may not align with Tel Aviv on every single aspect, there has been supportive silence within the Trump administration regarding Israel’s military actions.
This support emboldened Israel to act prior to the anticipated U.S.-Iran negotiations set for June 15, leading to a prolonged disruption in the diplomatic dialogue.
Iran has since indicated that these talks will not proceed.
Ali speculates that there was perhaps some form of communication between Netanyahu and the Trump administration leading up to the strikes, where Israel asserted the necessity for a robust military response to address the nuclear threat.
In public comments, Netanyahu mentioned that planning for a large-scale operation against Iran had actually begun in November of the previous year.
It’s plausible that while the White House expressed a desire for diplomatic progress, Israel moved forward with its plans regardless.
Some observers suggest that a motive for Netanyahu may have been to collapse ongoing U.S.-Iran negotiations, given his longstanding opposition to any agreement with Tehran.
In terms of the U.S. response to the situation, the White House has refrained from condemning Israel’s strikes, asserting that it did not offer direct support during the operation.
This stance seems intended more as a message to Iran, indicating that the attack was Israel’s decision alone, distancing the U.S. from direct involvement.
Washington appears acutely aware of the risks of any Iranian reprisal impacting U.S. assets in the region, particularly given past instances where Iranian proxies have targeted American bases.
In anticipation of potential attacks, the U.S. had already taken precautionary measures prior to Israel’s operations, spotlighting fears regarding American personnel in the area.
Iran has hinted at possible retaliatory actions, with Iranian Defense Minister Aziz Nasrizadeh previously warning that an Israeli strike could prompt attacks on U.S. forces.
While such statements risk escalation into a broader conflict, Iranian leaders are likely cautious about provoking a significant American military response.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei must consider the ramifications of targeting U.S. interests, fully aware of the potential consequences of a retaliation that could draw the U.S. into a full-scale conflict.
In the weeks following the initial strikes, analysts anticipate that Iran will need to respond in a manner that escalates beyond previous military engagements, given the current tensions.
Reports of drone attacks on Israel align with ongoing hostile actions, which could escalate significantly.
Despite suffering losses, Iran may still possess a substantial cache of missiles, drones, and other munitions suitable for use against regional targets.
One conceivable option for Iran could involve focusing attacks on maritime vessels in the Persian Gulf or attempting to disrupt shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz.
Moreover, Iran might increase its involvement in asymmetric warfare via its Quds Force, which could engage in terrorism or covert operations against perceived enemies.
The option to conduct cyberattacks against Israel, the United States, or their allies remains on the table as well.
As for the future of U.S.-Iran negotiations, the situation remains tenuous.
President Trump has signaled an openness to dialogue with Iran, warning that failure to reach an agreement could exacerbate conflicts following Israel’s latest offensive.
This attack could paradoxically motivate Iran to return to the negotiation table, although the assassination of nuclear scientists during the attack may harden Tehran’s resolve towards developing a nuclear arsenal.
Resilience against Israel may appear as the only viable deterrent strategy for Iran if they suspect U.S. involvement in the Israeli strikes.
Ultimately, the choices ahead for both Iran and the U.S. will need careful navigation to avoid a full-blown conflict, with repercussions that could be felt throughout the region.
image source from：https://theconversation.com/what-does-israels-strike-mean-for-us-policy-on-iran-and-prospects-for-a-nuclear-deal-258947
