Repercussions: Will Israel’s Attack on Iran Reshape the Nuclear Landscape?

The regional landscape, particularly since the events of October 7, 2023, has witnessed a qualitative shift in the nature of the confrontation between Israel and Iran. From decades of a “shadow war” characterized by cyber operations and pinpoint intelligence gathering – vividly demonstrated by the Stuxnet virus attack in 2010 that crippled Iranian centrifuges – and the targeting of assets in third-party countries, the conflict has escalated towards direct and overt military action. The most recent flare-up on June 13, 2025, represents an unprecedented escalation, reflecting an Israeli assessment that the “high enrichment risk” has surpassed the boundaries of traditional containment. This has prompted Tel Aviv to adopt a policy of “crossing the threshold” using overt military means. But does this dramatic shift, accompanied by mutual attacks, constitute a decisive turning point towards dismantling the Iranian nuclear program, or will it instead push Tehran to accelerate its steps towards, and perhaps beyond, the nuclear threshold?

Strategic Calculations:

Israeli strategic logic stems from a deep-rooted security doctrine known as the “Begin Doctrine,” which solidified after the destruction of the Iraqi nuclear reactor “Osirak” in 1981. This doctrine dictates that Israel will not allow any hostile state in the region to possess weapons of mass destruction, viewing them as an existential threat that necessitates preemptive force. Since then, this principle has been a cornerstone of Israeli strategic thinking towards the Iranian nuclear project.

In this context, Israel based its attacks on the morning of June 13, 2025, on a precise assessment of a “window of opportunity” that allowed for the activation of the “crossing the nuclear threshold” policy through the use of overt military force. This was timed before the American-Iranian nuclear negotiations scheduled for June 15, 2025, in Oman. In the logic of the state, which recognizes only the balance of power, Israel saw a military strike, not diplomatic understandings, as the sole guarantor of disabling the Iranian nuclear project.

From this perspective, the attacks were not merely a technical security reaction, but a calculated sovereign act to reshape the strategic environment and impose a logic of hard deterrence on the negotiating table. Israel believed that the continuation of talks without actual dismantling – voluntary or forced – of the Iranian nuclear infrastructure might lead to a dangerous reality, approaching the legitimization of the Iranian nuclear threat. The strikes came to upset the equation and redefine what is politically and strategically possible, not only by destroying material facilities but also by disrupting the negotiation path itself. These strategic calculations can be analyzed as follows:

Preparing the Military Stage: Israel prepared a suitable operational environment for the attack through preliminary strikes, targeting vulnerabilities in the Iranian infrastructure. Western intelligence reports indicated that Israeli F-35I Adir aircraft, modified with secret American collaboration to increase their range and ability to penetrate Iranian air defenses, were used with high efficiency. This enabled Israel to carry out precise strikes on sensitive nuclear facilities such as Natanz and Fordow, in addition to facilities in Isfahan, and vital infrastructure like air defense systems and missile bases. The attacks also included targeted targeting of human and scientific elements involved in the nuclear project, through complex intelligence operations against leaders from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and prominent nuclear scientists. Reuters linked some strikes to strategic sites outside the narrow nuclear sector, such as the attack on the “South Pars” gas field, indicating Israel’s intention to cripple Iran’s multi-dimensional strategic capabilities, beyond the narrow nuclear scope.

Weakening Iranian Regional Arms: Parallel to the Israeli attack on Iran, Israel relentlessly worked to undermine the capabilities of Iran’s arms in the region during the past months. The goal was to reduce Iran’s deterrent capability by weakening its tools and limiting its ability to execute an effective or coordinated future response. The strikes on those arms showed their validity, especially at the level of missile or drone threats; which now gives Israel greater room for maneuver and direct engagement without fear of large-scale attacks coming from its borders with Lebanon or Syria.

Implicit International Guarantees: Israel has received indirect American support and an international escalation of pressure on Tehran, which gives it room for maneuver. The statements of US President Donald Trump, which warned Iran of a “massive war” if a nuclear deal was not reached, and the escalation of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s tone against Iran, are all indicators of indirect American support aimed at increasing pressure on Tehran.

Complex Motivations Between Political Survival Considerations and National Security Requirements: The internal dimension in the timing of the Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities cannot be ignored. The strike came at a sensitive political moment, coinciding with a complex crisis within Israel, marked by serious threats to the continuity of the Netanyahu government. On the political level, the country was on the verge of dissolving the Knesset, after a dangerous preliminary vote that came amid sharp differences with the “Haredim” parties over the compulsory conscription law. Press reports indicated that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to postpone the final vote on dissolving the Knesset and was in dire need of a “major security event” to redirect attention towards an “existential external threat”, thereby ensuring the realignment of internal forces and consolidating his image as an indispensable security leader. Hence, the attack on Iran was a welcome opportunity to unite the home front and marginalize political conflicts, at a pivotal moment that threatened his political future. However, the attack cannot be reduced to mere circumstantial political considerations. The security motives have a real strategic weight, represented by the Israeli state’s recognition that the continuation of the Iranian nuclear program without decisive dismantling or disabling will lead to a radical change in the regional balance of deterrence. Therefore, it can be said that the decision to strike came as a result of a complex intersection between the logic of political survival and the logic of national security.

Strategic Obstacles:

Despite the apparent tactical success that Israel achieved in its strike on the morning of June 13, achieving the broader strategic goal of this strike faces significant and multi-dimensional obstacles. Assessing the effectiveness of this strike is not limited – as Richard Nephew, a former official in the US National Security Council, explains – to the extent of the material damage, but is based mainly on the extent of its ability to influence Tehran’s “political will” to continue its nuclear program. These obstacles can be classified within four main levels:

The Dilemma of Fortification and Knowledge: The idea of a “knockout blow” to the Iranian nuclear program is an exaggeration, given the deep material and technical obstacles that prevent its realization:

Fortification and Inventory: Iran has been keen to build its most sensitive facilities – such as the Fordow uranium enrichment facility – deep within the mountains and under thick layers of reinforced concrete, making them immune to most conventional bombs. To date, there is no conclusive evidence that the defenses surrounding these facilities have been breached or that the centrifuges have been completely destroyed. Even more dangerous is the fate of Iran’s stock of 60% enriched uranium, which, if it survives, can be easily moved to a secret location and the program restarted within weeks; which empties the strike of its strategic content.

Knowledge and Human Experience: Air strikes, no matter how precise, cannot erase the cognitive memory and technical expertise accumulated by thousands of Iranian scientists and technicians, who form the backbone of the program. Despite the assassination of some leaders, the survival of a “specialized and trained technical cadre” is enough to ensure the continuity of the project. Added to this are intelligence gaps and ambiguity about the extent of Iran’s ability to convert uranium into metal or manufacture a nuclear warhead, in addition to the possibility of the existence of secret sites not subject to international inspection, which reinforces the fragility of the hypothesis of complete destruction of the program.

“The Day After” Implications: The real danger lies not in the strike itself, but in its aftermath, which may lead to a wider escalation. The Iranian response through Operation “True Promise 3” showed Tehran’s ability to strike deep within Israel using missiles and drones. If things slide into an open confrontation, Israel will face a long and exhausting war of attrition, with a party that has a greater geographical, human, and strategic depth, and a higher ability to withstand losses. This threatens to erode internal Israeli stability in the medium and long term, as well as increase the economic and security costs of the conflict.

The Dilemma of Political Will: The most decisive variable is the psychological and political impact of the strike on the Iranian regime. There are two opposing scenarios:

The first is that the strike causes a “strategic shock” that pushes Tehran towards de-escalation and engaging in a diplomatic settlement that avoids further losses.

The second – which is closer to the observers’ perception – is that the strike is a reverse catalyst that pushes Iran to accelerate its nuclear steps, under the growing conviction that the nuclear weapon is the only guarantee for the survival of the regime. In this context, Tehran may seek to turn international public opinion against Israel, by portraying it as a state outside international law, which exacerbates tensions instead of containing them.

Regional and International Risks: The outbreak of a full-scale war between Iran and Israel is sufficient to ignite the entire region, particularly if Tehran decides to close the Strait of Hormuz. This strait is not merely a waterway but a critical global oil artery through which approximately 18 to 20 million barrels pass daily—about one-fifth of global oil supplies. Consequently, any disruption to this vital passage would have strategic repercussions extending far beyond the region, significantly impacting the global economy and reshaping geopolitical influences among major powers.

Should this scenario materialize, oil prices could spike sharply—according to Financial Times estimates—to $150 per barrel. Such a dramatic increase would shock global markets, affecting not only major industrialized nations but also the average consumer, especially in the United States. Politically, this would place considerable pressure on administrations that have structured their economic strategies around the assumption of persistently low oil prices, notably the administration of Donald Trump, which previously pursued a price ceiling around $50 per barrel to stimulate domestic growth and minimize costs for American citizens.

The repercussions would not be limited solely to energy markets. They would also include heightened insurance costs for maritime shipping and necessitate the restructuring of shipping routes toward Asian markets highly dependent on Gulf oil, with China at the forefront. Beijing is expected to actively intervene both politically and economically to thwart any attempts to close the strait, thereby safeguarding its strategic interests. Such a development could significantly alter the balance of influence within the Gulf region and undermine American efforts aimed at curbing Chinese expansion there.

On security and political fronts, heightened tensions might compel Washington to escalate military and financial support to Israel, diverging starkly from the “commercial pragmatism” characteristic of Trump’s policies, which prioritize international commitments based on profit and loss rather than ideological or strategic principles. Such deviation from traditional economic-driven foreign policy doctrines would add further strain on the federal budget and complicate ongoing efforts to minimize U.S. military engagements abroad.

The U.S. has specific conditions for direct involvement in any conflict, primarily linked to Iran’s actions—such as attacks on American military bases or attempts to close the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, however, has refrained from such moves thus far, recognizing the severe, zero-sum nature of such a decision and preferring not to provoke direct confrontation with Washington, even in defense of its stance against Israel.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, the Israeli strike that targeted Iranian nuclear facilities on June 13, 2025, despite the military and political shock it caused in the region, is not likely to constitute a decisive strategic turning point in the course of the Iranian nuclear program. The success of the operation from a tactical point of view does not hide the fact that this program has reached an institutional complexity and sovereign overlap; which makes it difficult to liquidate or disable it through a single military action, especially in light of the faltering diplomatic paths and the erosion of traditional deterrence rules. Indeed, the paradox may lie in the fact that the strike itself, with its clear message about the impossibility of relying on international guarantees, may lead to completely opposite results, pushing Tehran to accelerate its move towards the nuclear threshold under a cohesive internal sovereign cover, and a new deterrence logic that sees in the nuclear weapon the only guarantee to prevent a recurrence of the attack scenario; which heralds the region’s slide into a pattern of unstable deterrence, interspersed with periodic imbalances and explosions that are not confined within the borders of the Iranian-Israeli conflict, but may extend to undermine the equations of regional and international security alike.