( Al Jazeera ) – 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.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s or Informed Comment’s editorial stance.
© 2025 All Rights Reserved