Ibrahim Al-Marashi and Mohammad Eslami
Historians may well mark June 13,
2025, as the day the world crossed a line it may not easily step back from. In
a move that shocked the international community and sent global markets
reeling, Israel launched a wide-scale military operation against Iran in the
early hours of the morning, striking targets across at least 12 provinces,
including the capital, Tehran, and the northwestern hub of Tabriz. Among the
targets were suspected nuclear facilities, air defence systems, and the homes
and offices of senior military personnel. Iranian state media confirmed the
deaths of several top commanders in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps
(IRGC).
The Israeli government officially
confirmed responsibility for the attacks, naming the campaign Operation Raising
Lion. Iranian officials described it as the most direct act of war in the
countries’ decades-long shadow conflict.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu appears to be pursuing two objectives. First, Israeli officials fear
that Iran is nearing the technical capability to build a nuclear weapon –
something Netanyahu has repeatedly promised to prevent, by force if necessary.
Second, Israel hopes a dramatic escalation will pressure Tehran into accepting
a new nuclear agreement more favourable to United States and Israeli interests,
including the removal of its enriched uranium stockpiles. Just as Netanyahu has
failed to destroy Hamas through military force, both goals may ultimately serve
only to perpetuate a broader regional war.
While the prospect of all-out war
between Iran and Israel has long loomed, Friday’s events feel dangerously
different. The scale, audacity and implications of the attack – and the
near-certain Iranian response – raise the spectre of a regional conflict spilling
far beyond its traditional bounds.
Since the 2011 Arab Spring, a
Saudi-Iranian cold war has played out across the region as each country has
sought to expand its influence. That rivalry was paused through Chinese
mediation in March 2023. But since October 2023, a war of attrition between Israel
and Iran has unfolded through both conventional and asymmetrical means – a
conflict that now threatens to define the trajectory of the Middle East for
years to come.
Whether this confrontation
escalates further now hinges largely on one man: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. If
Iran’s supreme leader comes to view the survival of the Islamic Republic as
fundamentally threatened, Tehran’s response could expand far beyond Israeli
territory.
In recent months, Israeli leaders
had issued repeated warnings that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was
imminent. Intelligence assessments in Tel Aviv claimed Iran was only weeks away
from acquiring the necessary components to build a nuclear weapon. Although
this claim was disputed by other members of the international community, it
nonetheless shaped Israel’s decision to act militarily.
At the same time, indirect
negotiations between Iran and the US had been under way, focused on limiting
Iran’s uranium enrichment and reducing tensions through a revised nuclear
agreement. US President Donald Trump publicly supported these diplomatic efforts,
describing them as preferable to what he called a potentially bloody war.
However, the talks faltered when Iran refused to halt enrichment on its own
soil.
The US administration, while
officially opposing military escalation, reportedly gave tacit approval for a
limited Israeli strike. Washington is said to have believed that such a strike
could shift the balance in negotiations and send a message that Iran was not
negotiating from a position of strength – similar to how Trump has framed
Ukraine’s position in relation to Russia. Although US officials maintain they
had advance knowledge of the attacks but did not participate operationally,
both the aircraft and the bunker-busting bombs used were supplied by the US,
the latter during Trump’s first term.
Initial reports from Iranian
sources confirm that the strikes inflicted significant damage on centrifuge
halls and enrichment pipelines at its Natanz facility. However, Iranian
officials insist the nuclear programme remains intact. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure
includes multiple deeply buried sites – some more than 500 metres (550 yards)
underground and spread across distances exceeding 1,000km (620 miles). As a
result, the total destruction of the programme by air strikes alone in this
initial phase appears unlikely.
Iranian officials have long
warned that any direct military aggression on their territory by Israel would
cross a red line, and they have promised severe retaliation. Now, with blood
spilled on its soil and key targets destroyed, Khamenei faces enormous internal
and external pressure to respond. The elimination of multiple high-ranking
military officials in a single night has further intensified the demand for a
multifaceted response.
Iran’s reply so far has taken the
form of another wave of drone attacks, similar to those launched in April and
October – most of which were intercepted by Israeli and Jordanian defences.
If Iran does not engage with the
US at the upcoming talks in Oman on Sunday regarding a possible nuclear deal,
the failure of diplomacy could mark the start of a sustained campaign. The
Iranian government has stated that it does not view the Israeli operation as an
isolated incident, but rather as the beginning of a longer conflict. Referring
to it as a “war of attrition” – a term also used to describe Iran’s drawn-out
war with Iraq in the 1980s – officials have indicated the confrontation is
likely to unfold over weeks or even months.
While retaliatory missile and
drone strikes on Israeli targets are likely to continue, many now anticipate
that Iran could also target US military bases in the Gulf, Bahrain, Qatar, the
United Arab Emirates and even Jordan. Such an escalation would likely draw US
forces directly into the conflict, implicate critical regional infrastructure
and disrupt global oil supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz.
That, in turn, could trigger a steep rise in energy prices and send global
markets spiralling – dragging in the interests of nearly every major power.
Even if an immediate,
proportionate military response proves difficult, Iran is expected to act
across several domains, including cyberattacks, proxy warfare and political
manoeuvring. Among the political options reportedly under consideration is a
full withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
(NPT). Iran has long used the NPT framework to assert that its nuclear
programme is peaceful. Exiting the treaty would signal a significant policy
shift. Additionally, there is growing speculation within Iran’s political
circles that the religious decree issued by Khamenei banning the development
and use of nuclear weapons may be reconsidered. If that prohibition is lifted,
Iran could pursue a nuclear deterrent openly for the first time.
Whether Israel’s strikes
succeeded in delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions – or instead provoked Tehran to
accelerate them – remains uncertain. What is clear is that the confrontation
has entered a new phase. Should Iran exit the NPT and begin advancing its
nuclear programme without the constraints of international agreements, some may
argue that Israel’s campaign – intended to stop a bomb – may instead end up
accelerating its creation.
No comments:
Post a Comment