On June 13, Israel launched widespread strikes against Iran. They hit military bases, nuclear sites, and residential buildings, assassinating senior Iranian officials and scientists. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the attacks would continue for “as many days as it takes to remove the threat” Iran poses to Israel. The attacks came days before U.S. and Iranian negotiators planned to meet for a sixth round of talks on Iran’s nuclear program. U.S. officials denied playing any role in the strikes, and President Trump urged Iran to “make a deal,” warning that more attacks would be “even more brutal.”
Q1: Why did Israel attack Iran now?
A1: While Israel has been planning this attack for months, a confluence of factors likely led to its decision to act last night. Israel’s mounting fears regarding Iran’s nuclear ambitions, coupled with its assessment of a closing window of opportunity to strike Iranian nuclear targets, likely played into the timing of the Israeli attack. Israeli strikes on Iran last October significantly degraded Iran’s missile defenses, and Israel’s decimation of the Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah eroded Iran’s second-strike capabilities. Compounding concerns, for the first time in 20 years, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a resolution yesterday citing Iran’s noncompliance with nuclear non-proliferation. Iran angrily responded that it would build an additional enrichment site. Finally, the United States was about to engage in a sixth round of indirect talks with Iran in pursuit of a nuclear deal. Israel has long expressed its skepticism over the negotiations, fearing that Iran was merely buying time. Last night’s strikes have likely derailed those talks.
Q2: What options does Iran have to respond in the short and long term?
A2: Iran’s short-term options will depend on how much damage Iran sustained in this first round of Israeli strikes. As of this writing, Tehran has launched drone strikes on Israel. It is likely to launch ballistic missiles as well. Iran has also vowed to strike U.S. targets in the region; however, that would draw the United States into the conflict, dramatically increasing the risks to Iran. Iran’s long-term strategy is currently less clear. Iran’s military leadership has been decapitated in the strikes, likely impacting its longer-term planning. Among the more extreme options, Iran could opt to block the Strait of Hormuz, a critical choke point that would imperil global energy trade and lead to skyrocketing oil prices. However, Tehran is unlikely to make this move as it would undermine its own oil trade and provoke Gulf Arabs at a time when their ties had been warming.
Q3: What does this attack mean for the Trump administration’s Middle East strategy?
A3: Israel’s attack upends the Trump administration’s Middle East strategy. During his trip to the region last month, President Trump sought to establish deeper business ties with the region and distance his administration from previous U.S. military interventions in the Middle East. Trump came into office promising, “My proudest legacy will be that of a peacemaker and unifier.” The president staked his reputation on reaching a deal with Iran and negotiating a lasting ceasefire in Gaza; he campaigned against U.S. “forever wars” in the Middle East. With Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu signaling that Israel’s military strikes could go on for “as many days as it takes,” the United States could easily be drawn into a protracted military confrontation in the Middle East.
Q4: How might regional states respond?
A4: Countries in the region have strongly condemned the Israeli strikes. For example, Saudi Arabia expressed “its strong condemnation and denunciation of the heinous Israeli attacks against the brotherly Islamic Republic of Iran.” Regional actors are also responding with significant anxiety over what the next days and weeks will bring. Many worry that the conflict will spill over in unpredictable ways. In anticipation of deepening conflict, several countries in the region have closed their airspace, disrupting international travel. The growing conflict between Israel and Iran comes at a time when key stakeholders in the region were seeking to de-escalate tensions and assist countries emerging from conflict, such as Syria and Lebanon. The prospect of a region-wide conflagration dramatically imperils efforts to stabilize the region and promote economic growth. Gulf countries, especially those that typically play a mediating role like Oman, are likely to work assiduously behind the scenes to de-escalate tensions. They may seek to leverage improved ties with Iran to urge restraint while also assuring Tehran that they will not join the fray. Israel is likely to be further isolated in the region.
Mona Yacoubian is senior adviser and director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
