Executive Summary
In the early hours of Friday morning, June 13, 2025, the Israeli Air Force launched a large-scale military operation against Iranian nuclear facilities, described as unprecedented compared to previous direct conflicts between the two sides. The strikes hit the heart of Iranian power, targeting a list of senior military and intelligence leaders in the Iranian establishment, top nuclear experts behind the nuclear program and senior air force commanders as well as drone facilities and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) air defense systems. This reveals that Israel has completely subverted the rules of the game and that it has a much broader goal behind these strikes: to paralyze the Iranian establishment’s capabilities and destroy its center of power and symbol of pride, the nuclear program, in preparation for a new phase in Iran that may transcend the ruling establishment. In contrast, Iran has launched strikes against Israel that do not indicate a shift in the Iranian position from the traditional rules of the game — until the date of preparing this report — with Israel continuing its strikes against Iran. Therefore, this position paper reviews the extent of Iranian losses and their repercussions and implications for the Iranian leadership, the future of the nuclear negotiations and the trajectories of direct military escalation between the Israeli and Iranian sides, especially after the major counterattack launched by Iran against several Israeli cities with missiles and drones, which revolves around the scenario of strikes and counterstrikes to achieve deterrence. In addition, the position paper examines the scenario of Iranian submission, the scenario of expanding the scope of escalation with the entry of regional proxies on the front lines of the escalating conflict, and finally, the scenario of all-out war. This indicates the emergence of potential risks resulting from this new state of escalation, which will have repercussions for peace and security across the region and the world.
Introduction
An Israeli military escalation against Iran, seen as a potential threat to regional peace and security, has posed the greatest, most dangerous and most serious test of Iran’s strength and capabilities. In the early hours of Friday morning, June 13, 2025, Israeli aircraft launched a preemptive military operation named Rising Lion. The operation included around 300 airstrikes, delivering five concentrated attacks on Iranian targets, including in Tehran, Qom and Tabriz. Israeli statements described the strikes as qualitative, preemptive and necessary, and referred to these deadly incursions as the first stage. Indeed, Israel followed up that afternoon with additional strikes on various Iranian sites and provinces. These strikes continued into the second day, targeting central Tehran, the Natanz nuclear site once again and facilities near Tabriz International Airport in northwestern Iran. The escalation then extended to oil infrastructure, with strikes hitting the vicinity of the Tabriz refinery. Israeli statements asserted that the operation had been extensively planned in advance by Mossad operatives inside Iran. In response, Iran launched counterattacks on several Israeli cities using missiles and drones, under the name True Promise 3, resulting in property damage and several injuries.
These developments raise several pressing questions: What explains Israel’s complete shift in the rules of engagement? What are its real objectives behind this escalation — is it merely to pressure Iran into accepting the terms of ongoing negotiations, or does it aim to paralyze the ruling establishment and dismantle its center of power, symbolized by the nuclear program? How extensive is the damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure caused by the Israeli strikes? Are the attacks meant to disrupt, delay or fully destroy the nuclear project, especially considering that such an outcome requires time and a high cost? How does this round of escalation differ from previous ones? What options does Iran have in response? Will it escalate further, compelling Israel to reassess its strategy, or will it continue operating under the traditional rules that Israel has now bypassed in an effort to impose a new regional reality? What are Israel’s objectives in the face of a potential major Iranian retaliation and will Iran deliver a decisive response to deter further Israeli actions? What are the future trajectories of mutual escalation between the two sides?
Assessing the Damage Resulting From the Israeli Attacks on Iran
Observers unanimously agree that Iran has sustained an exceptionally severe blow in the current round of Israeli escalation, with damage and losses far exceeding those of previous attacks. This includes damage to nuclear sites and facilities, the targeting of key figures and the overall impact on the Iranian establishment, as outlined below:
Striking Sensitive Nuclear and Military Positions
Unlike previous rounds of escalation, the Israeli attacks this time struck dozens of sensitive nuclear and military targets. According to the official Israeli narrative, 10 nuclear sites were hit, most notably the Natanz facility in Isfahan Province — the central hub of uranium enrichment in Iran — and the Ahmadi Roshan uranium enrichment site in Natanz. While there has been no mention of nuclear contamination, official Iranian statements confirm that the Natanz facility sustained damage on multiple levels, particularly in areas linked to uranium enrichment. According to the Israeli account, however, it inflicted extensive damage on both the facility and the nuclear program as a whole.
The Natanz facility, Iran’s most important nuclear site where uranium is enriched to 60% purity, was directly targeted in the Israeli attacks. However, the full extent of the damage, particularly to the nuclear program, remains difficult to assess due to the wide geographical distribution of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. The strikes are seen as a painful blow to Iran — possibly the most severe since the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s — especially following the loss of senior establishment figures. Military sites, bases and missile launchers were also hit in southwest Tehran, home to IRGC and air force installations, and in eastern Tehran, where the Parchin military complex and Ministry of Defense sites are located. The concentration of attacks on western sites suggests that Israel aims to secure air routes for its aircraft to and from Iran, indicating the likelihood of further Israeli strikes on additional Iranian sites until the leadership is weakened to the point of relinquishing its nuclear ambitions.
Table 1: The Positions That Were Targeted
| Location | Source | |
| 1 | Buildings in Saadat Abad, Tehran | Shargh |
| 2 | Buildings on Patrice Lumumba Street | Fararu website |
| 3 | Residences of Tehranji and Fereydoun Abbasi | Fararu website |
| 4 | The residence of Ali Shamkhani | Eghtesad Online |
| 5 | Subashi radar site | Mehr News Agency |
| 6 | Sayyida Ma’souma air defense site in Qom | IRNA |
| 7 | A missile factory in Shiraz | The Israeli army + Shafaqna website |
| 8 | Other sites in Tabriz | The Israeli army + Shafaqna website |
| 9 | Natanz facility | Insaf News |
| 10 | Air defense in the Khruslu area of Ardabil Province | Tasnim News Agency |
| 11 | Bargin Facilities | Roidad 24 |
| 12 | A number of military facilities in Tehran | Rouydad 24 |
| 13 | Arak heavy water reactor | Rouydad 24 |
| 14 | Military bases in Borujard, Khorramabad, Qasr Shirin, Ilam and Biranshahr | Rouydad 24 |
| 15 | Areas in the capital, Tehran Qeytarieh Niavaran West Tehran (Jitgar, Karmdareh, Farahzadi, Marzdaran) East Tehran (Narmak) Near Mehrabad Airport Mahalati Area Chamran Area (Nobonyad) Kamranieh Kotab Square Teachers’ Complex Andarzgoo Armed Forces General Command Headquarters Shahr-e Ara Shahid Daqayeqi City (large-scale attacks) South Tehran (Khavarshahr Area) Pakdasht Area (southeast Tehran) Hakimiyah Area (northeast Tehran) Aqdisiyah Area (north Tehran) Mehrabad Airport | Eghtesad Online Asr Iran Mehr News Agency |
| 16 | Explosions in Hamadan, Khandab, Kermanshah and Lorestan | Rouydad 24 |
| 17 | IRGC radar site in Piranshahr | Eghtesad 24 |
| 18 | An explosion occurred in the vicinity of Hamadan, specifically in the areas surrounding Nojeh Air Base. | Khabar Fawry |
| 19 | The second interception base in Tabriz | ISNA |
| 20 | 10 positions in East Azerbaijan | ISNA |
| 21 | 7 positions in Tabriz | Borna News Agency |
| 22 | Two sites in the Shahid Tolaei and Shahid Karimi barracks in the lands of Bostan Abad (Tabriz) | Borna News Agency |
| 23 | A site in Maragheh (Tabriz) | Borna News Agency |
| 24 | Imam Ali missile site in Khorramabad | Khabar Fawry |
| 25 | Noja Air Base (twice) | Farda news website |
| 26 | Border Regiment Base in Sardasht | Tasnim News Agency |
| 27 | Fordow facility near Qom | Aftab News |
| 28 | The eighth air base in Isfahan | ————– |
| 29 | Mohammad Shahr city, Karaj | Asr Iran website |
| 30 | Isfahan | Mehr News Agency |
| 31 | Chitkar City, West of Tehran | Hamshahri Online |
| 32 | Pakdasht city, southeast of Tehran | Mehr News Agency |
| 33 | Boyin Zahra City, Qazvin Province | Hamshahri Online |
| 34 | Khavarshahr town, south of Tehran | Afkar News |
| 35 | The counties of Rabat Karim, Baharestan, Malard and parts of Shahriar, west of Tehran | Dideh Ban Iran website |
| 36 | The main nuclear reactor in Isfahan | Dideh Ban Iran website |
| 37 | Abbasabad-Tehran | Shafaqna website |
| 38 | Central and Eastern Tehran | Aftab News |
| 39 | Aqdasiyeh neighborhood in Tehran | Rokna News Agency |
| 40 | The vicinity of the supreme leader’s headquarters, Pasteur Square, Azerbaijan Street, Fallah District (District 17) and parts of District 18 in Tehran | Gooya News |
| 41 | Azadi Tower | Rokna News Agency (denied) |
| 42 | The Interior Ministry headquarters | X post (denied) |
| 43 | Hakimiyah and Tehranpars neighborhoods | Bartarinha website |
| 44 | Communications tower in Karaj | Eqtisadian Online |
| 45 | Piroozi Street, East Tehran | Khabar Online |
| 46 | Jitgar area of Tehran | Facebook post |
| 47 | Ba’athat Barracks in Borujerd County, Lorestan Province | Noor News |
| 48 | Armored base in Zanjan | Iran Wire website (unofficial sources) |
| 49 | Langrud and Shamkhaleh districts (Gilan Province) | Iran Wire website (unofficial sources) |
| 50 | Tabriz refinery | IRNA (denied) |
| 51 | Renewed attacks on East Azerbaijan, targeting four points there, such as Khorramabad. | Hamshahri Online |
| 52 | Renewed attack on Kermanshah Province | Hamshahri Online |
| 53 | Asadabad district of Hamadan Province | Mehr News Agency |
| 54 | Renewed attack on Tabriz | Khabar Online |
| 55 | A factory in the Chahardangeh area, south of Tehran | Tabnak website |
| 56 | A center affiliated with the Ministry of Defense in Shiraz | Khabar Online website (denied) |
| 57 | Alborz Industrial City in Qazvin Province | Khabar Online website (denied) |
| 58 | Attack on the Musyan Municipality building in Ilam Province | Khabar Fawri |
| 59 | Attack on Imam Hassan Barracks in Kermanshah Province | Tasnim News Agency |
| 60 | Ashtarinan city, northwest of Lorestan province: Attack on Farda Motors car factory in Borujerd | Tasnim News Agency Asr Iran |
| 61 | Targeting Maragheh in East Azerbaijan | Mehr News Agency |
Clarifications regarding the technical status of the targeted nuclear sites and the radiation situation:
- -According to Iranian reports, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was informed that no increased radiation levels were detected at 13 different sites targeted by Israel, including the Natanz nuclear enrichment facility. The IAEA also reported that the Isfahan and Fordow sites had not been affected so far.
- -The Saudi Nuclear Regulatory Authority, citing information from the Nuclear Emergency Operations Center of the Nuclear and Radiological Regulatory Authority, confirmed there was no environmental contamination near the Natanz and Isfahan uranium enrichment plants. This falls under the early notification agreement for nuclear incidents to inform the IAEA’s Incident and Emergency Center (IEC) about what it received from the Iranian Nuclear Regulatory Authority (INRA).
- -There is speculation that Iran may be downplaying any radioactive emissions to minimize the perceived success of the Israeli strikes. However, radiation can be monitored through satellites and specialized aircraft.
- -It is likely that Iran took precautionary measures in anticipation of the attacks, including shutting down centrifuges and heavy water reactors and removing and storing uranium compounds. The explosions’ shockwaves likely destroyed centrifuges, which are extremely sensitive due to their high-speed rotation, thereby compromising facility safety. If the uranium and centrifuges were successfully secured underground, this would represent a strategic safeguard for both Iran and the IAEA.
- -Iran may now claim that a significant amount of enriched uranium and centrifuges were destroyed in the attacks. For inspection purposes, the IAEA can be shown the affected buildings and damaged equipment, including centrifuges containing uranium hexafluoride. The fissile material could potentially be further enriched at a later stage for clandestine use in a nuclear device.
- -Iran’s key military installations — including remaining active radar systems and anti-aircraft batteries — were hit by long-range weapons launched from leading Israeli Air Force fighter jets, with Israel claiming the use of around 200 aircraft in the operation. One of the most notable targets was the underground missile storage facility in Kermanshah, from which massive plumes of smoke were observed. The facility, stretching for miles underground at depths of 60 meters to 100 meters, likely sustained limited damage due to its fortified structure.
- -Analysis of Mossad footage released after the strikes indicates that the operation focused on dismantling Iran’s air defense systems and ballistic missile launchers, compensating for the lack of explosives powerful enough to destroy deeply buried tunnels. It is expected that nuclear facilities will be struck again to ensure their complete destruction or disablement.
- -Natanz was targeted, but the Fordow complex was not. This is likely due to Fordow’s status as a heavily fortified underground facility that has been converted into a full-scale enrichment site, producing most of Iran’s 60% highly enriched uranium. In contrast, Israel struck Natanz in several ways. The Natanz complex is partially above ground and only partly underground, lacking the deep concrete reinforcement and complex tunnel systems that protect Fordow. This made it a relatively accessible target. Contrary to common belief, Natanz is not the central hub of Iran’s nuclear program but one of several key sites. However, bombing it carries significant symbolic and political weight, as it represents, in the eyes of establishment supporters, the resilience and defiance of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Israel’s current bunker-busting capabilities can penetrate up to 35 meters. The US-made GBU-57 bunker-buster bomb, by comparison, can reach depths of at least 60 meters, and the combined use of multiple bombs can impact structures more than 100 meters underground. Fordow may have been deliberately left for a subsequent attack following Iran’s counterstrike. Tel Aviv cannot deploy the GBU-57, as it is too heavy for Israeli fighter jets. Israel may therefore be seeking to draw the United States into the conflict to utilize US heavy bombers capable of destroying the Fordow site. Alternatively, Mossad could be planning a less dramatic but more effective internal sabotage operation, especially in light of the apparent collapse of Iranian intelligence services and the reported decline in the morale of Iranian intelligence personnel.
Targeting Senior Military Figures
Unlike previous rounds, and in what appears to be a clear indication of Israel’s intent to eliminate senior officials in Tehran, the latest attacks targeted high-profile and influential figures within the Iranian establishment. These individuals hold substantial sway within Iran’s decision-making circles — marking a shift in Israeli strategy compared to earlier escalations (see the following tables).
- –IRGC Commander-in-Chief Hossein Salami: He was a veteran military officer who served the Iranian establishment since the outset of his career. Known for his hostile rhetoric toward the United States and Israel, he was under US sanctions. He was also listed among the military officials involved in the decision to launch direct Iranian strikes against Israel in response to Israeli attacks on Iran in 2024. As tensions with Israel escalated over the past week, he declared Iran’s readiness for any possible scenario.
- –Chief of Staff Ali Bagheri: He was regarded as the second most important figure in the Iranian establishment after the supreme leader and among the most prominent military commanders who fought in the Iran–Iraq War. He previously led one of the key manufacturing institutions affiliated with the IRGC and had significant experience dealing with armed Iranian Kurdish groups, stemming from his work in the intelligence services. In June 2016, the supreme leader appointed him chief of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, succeeding Major General Hossein Firouzabadi. Alongside Ali Fadavi, Gholam Rashid and Mohammad Ali Jafari, he was considered part of the core leadership network of the IRGC.
- –Commander of Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters Gholam Ali Rashid: A prominent IRGC commander, he took part in the First Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm). He previously served as deputy director of operations within the IRGC General Staff and held the position of deputy director of intelligence and operations in the Armed Forces General Staff for a decade. He was deputy chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces until 2015, after which he became commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters. He also served as deputy for defense affairs in the Secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council. He was under US sanctions.
- –Ali Shamkhani, former secretary-general of the Supreme National Security Council and presidential advisor: He was subject to sanctions. According to reports, he was severely injured and transferred to a hospital in Tehran where he passed away. Additionally, two of the most prominent nuclear scientists were killed, including Fereydoun Abbasi and Mehdi Tehranchi, president of Islamic Azad University. The Israeli army confirmed the elimination of the commanders of the IRGC’s Air Force, drone corps and air defense.
- –Brigadier General Mahdi Rabbani, deputy for Operations Affairs of the General Staff in the Iranian Armed Forces: He was killed with his wife and children.
Table 2: A List of the Iranian Commanders Who Have Been Confirmed Dead So Far
| 1 | Major General Mohammad Hossein Bagheri | Chief of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces |
| 2 | Major General Hossein Salami | IRGC Commander-in-Chief |
| 3 | Major General Gholam Ali Rashid | Commander of the Khatam al-Anbiya Central Headquarters |
| 4 | Ali Shamkhani | The supreme leader’s adviser |
| 5 | Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh | Commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces |
| 6 | Brigadier General Davoud Sheikhian | Commander of the Air Defense Forces of the IRGC Aerospace Force |
| 7 | Brigadier General Mehdi Rabbani | Assistant for Operations Affairs of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces |
| 8 | Brigadier General Gholam Reza Mahraby | Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces for Intelligence Affairs |
Table 3: Commanders Reportedly Killed
| 1 | Ismail Qaani | Quds Force commander |
| 2 | Alireza Tangsiri | Commander of the IRGC navy |
| 3 | Alireza Pourdastan | Commander of the army Ground Forces |
| 4 | Amir Shahram Irani | Commander of the Army’s naval forces |
| 5 | Alireza Soleimani | Commander of the Basij forces |
| 6 | Nasirzadeh | Commander of the army’s air force |
| 7 | Mohammad Jafar Assadi | A commander in the Quds Force |
| 8 | Unknown-the Israeli army | The commander of drone branch of power within the IRGC |
Table 4: Nuclear Scientists Reportedly Killed
| 1 | Abdolhamid Minouchehr |
| 2 | Ahmad Reza Zolfaghari |
| 3 | Seyyed Amir Hossein Faghihi |
| 4 | Motalibizadeh |
| 5 | Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi |
| 6 | Fereydoun Abbasi |
| 7 | Ali Bekaei Karimi |
| 8 | Mansour Askari |
| 9 | Saeed Borji |
Table 5: Military Deaths
| Status | Official / non-official confirmation | |
| 1 | Two members of the army’s air defense forces were killed at the air defense site Sayyida al-Massouma | Official |
| 2 | One military service commissioner in the border regiment was killed in the Sardasht area | Official |
| 3 | Three IRGC members are killed in Zanjan | Official |
| 4 | Hossein Salami’s bodyguard (Abul Fadl Abdam) | Official |
| 5 | Two Basij forces killed in a military garrison in Zarandiya district of the central governorate | Official |
Table 6: Civilian Deaths
| Status | Official / non-official confirmation | |
| 1 | Farashteh Bagheri, daughter of Mohammad Bagheri, wife and children of Mehdi Rabbani, assistant for operations affairs of the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, wife of Mehdi Tehranchi, president of Azad University, and four of his guards, wife and children of Mehdi Rabbani, daughter of Deputy Minister of Higher Education Masoud Shams Bakhsh. Zahra Shams Bakhsh, assistant to the president for scientific and technical affairs and daughter of the former deputy minister of higher education / son of Major General Ghulam Ali Rashid. | Official |
| 2 | 95 injured in 12 governorates | Official |
| 3 | 78 killed and 329 injured in Tehran province | Official |
| 4 | Eight killed in Tabriz and 12 injured / The number in East Azerbaijan Province has been updated to 18 dead. | Official |
| 5 | Parsa Mansour (padel player) killed | Official |
| 6 | Sina Soleimani: Director of Investment Management Group (AMED) | Official |
| 7 | 60 people are killed in the Chamran residential complex (north of Tehran). | Official |
| 8 | Five killed in Asadabad in Hamedan province. | Official |
| 9 | A number of workers at the Verda Motors car plant in Borujerd were killed (not yet determined). | Official |
Sources: RNA, Hamshahri Online, Tasnim, Bolton News, Gilan Instant News, Elena, Tabnak, Mehr News Agency, ISNA, Khabar Online
Timing, Objectives and Significations of The Attacks
The Israeli strikes — carried out across three fronts: nuclear, military and intelligence — constitute a significant intelligence breach that led to the deaths of influential establishment figures and senior nuclear scientists. It may also signal a shift in the balance of military, technological and intelligence power in Israel’s favor. This development highlights several key points, as follows:
A Timely and Strategic Moment for Israel
The attacks occurred at a pivotal moment for Israel, which has long sought to target Iranian nuclear facilities. With time narrowing to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel’s leadership appears to have reached a point of no return, believing a military strike was necessary. The operation capitalized on Israel’s recent success in weakening Iran’s regional proxies. It was preceded by strikes on military positions in Southern Lebanon, aimed at averting immediate confrontation and limiting Iran’s response options.
The Israeli escalation also followed contradictory remarks by the US president, who expressed opposition to an Israeli strike while stating that Iran must not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon. Notably, the attack came after the expiration of a 60-day period set by Washington to give diplomacy a final chance to yield a new nuclear deal with Tehran.
Israel’s Endgame — Paralyzing the Establishment and Destroying Its Seat of Power
The nature of the strikes indicate that Israel’s ultimate objective is to cripple and weaken the Iranian establishment, damage its prestige and dismantle its center of power — laying the groundwork for its eventual collapse in the medium to long term. This strategy centers on eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat, undermining Iran’s military capabilities, and ensuring a more secure future for Israel and its citizens. For Israel, the core issue is one of survival and existence. As such, it views the prospect of any other country in the region acquiring a nuclear weapon as a direct and existential threat to its continued presence in the Middle East.
A Powerful, Unprecedented Military Operation
These latest Israeli attacks on Iran differ significantly from previous strikes launched since October 7. Carried out in successive waves and still ongoing, they appear open-ended — amounting to the start of a conflict that may not have a clear endpoint. According to an official Israeli military statement, 200 Iranian sites were hit using 300 bombs, with F-35I squadrons and other undisclosed weapons involved.
What distinguishes this operation is its focused targeting of nuclear facilities—most notably the Natanz reactor—alongside key figures behind Iran’s nuclear program and top-tier military leaders. The aim appears to be to disrupt Iran’s command and control structure and delay its ability to respond. These actions suggest that Israel is laying the groundwork for a longer-term military campaign.
Israel has employed a strategy of strategic deception to keep the Iranian leadership in a state of confusion and disarray, thereby limiting its capacity to mount a strong counterattack. This campaign of misdirection preceded the strikes and included diplomatic and political signals suggesting a de-escalation. These included heightened diplomatic activity around a planned new round of negotiations in Oman on Sunday, June 15, 2025; Israeli media narratives about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu taking time off for his son’s wedding; and remarks by the US ambassador to Israel implying that an Israeli strike was unlikely without prior approval from Washington.
A Painful Blow to the Iranian Ruling System
The Israeli strikes reflect a clear intention to destabilize the Iranian establishment, weaken its foundations, and potentially pave the way for a broader transformation by continuing to target senior leadership figures. Since October 7, Israel appears to be pursuing a strategic overhaul of the regional order, aimed at establishing its dominance and neutralizing key threats — foremost among them, Iran. Similar to its evolving approach toward Hezbollah, Israel seems to be preparing for sweeping changes. This wave of attacks marks a significant shock to the Iranian establishment and may alter internal dynamics in ways that work against it, especially when compounded by existing economic strain, internal dysfunction, and waning public support.
A Pervasive Penetration Into Iran
According to Mossad, it had established a drone base inside Iranian territory and planted advanced systems near military sites that directly supported the recent attacks. It also reportedly deployed commando units on the ground, contributing to the operation. If these claims are accurate, they point to a deep security breach within Iran and represent a significant intelligence and operational infiltration. Beyond the military achievements, such revelations carry serious psychological weight, shaking internal confidence and further eroding the establishment’s image, its perceived strength and its ability to maintain internal security.
A Severe Blow as a Moment of Vulnerability Rendering Iran and Its “Axis of Resistance” Exposed
Tehran has always relied on a network of allies and regional proxies as a preventive wall behind which it fights its opponents and avoids direct clashes. However, the field and political data from the last two years have revealed cracks in this wall, showing the limited ability of these parties to effectively represent Iran or defend its interests. This has weakened Iran’s capacity to engage in proxy battles and gradually exposed it to direct confrontation with Israel.
In Lebanon, the decline of Hezbollah’s role has become increasingly evident, not only in terms of military action but also regarding its internal legitimacy and the pressures from both the Lebanese and international environments. During the recent Gaza war, Hezbollah opted for tactical rhetoric and limited movements along the southern border, avoiding engagement in an open front, which gave the clear impression that Tehran could no longer depend on it as an effective offensive arm.
In Syria, the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in late 2024 dealt a significant strategic blow to Iran and its defense axis in the region. Tehran lost its most prominent ally in the heart of the Levant and, with that, a major arena for its military and political influence, as well as an important corridor linking Tehran to Beirut via Baghdad and Damascus. This shift diminished Iran’s ability to manage supply lines and connect the elements of its “Axis of Resistance,” which it established to prevent any escalation similar to what occurred on June 13, 2025.
In Iraq, pro-Tehran groups withdrew from any active involvement and seemed preoccupied with addressing internal challenges, including political and military divisions. This left their presence in the regional scene almost nonexistent at a crucial moment when Tehran hoped these groups would serve as leverage in the event of escalation.
In light of these declines, Iran found itself directly confronting Israel, without any intermediaries or proxies — a situation that the relationship between the two parties has not witnessed in this open form for years. This circumstance made military confrontation between them inevitable, especially for Tel Aviv, which believes that delivering a decisive blow to Iran has become a strategic necessity to end the state of Israeli vulnerability resulting from the Al-Aqsa Flood Operation in October 2023 and the subsequent internal and security confusion.
A Technical Military Analysis of Israel’s Stealth Operation
The Israeli attacks were a surprise in both timing and location, executed with a high degree of coordination across intelligence, cyber warfare units and stealth aircraft. This level of integration highlights the sophistication of the operation and underscores Israel’s ability to launch precise, multidimensional strikes deep inside Iranian territory.
The Israeli strikes appear to have achieved a strategic surprise comparable — though on a smaller scale — to the Egyptian air force’s crippling blow in June 1967. Notably, no anti-aircraft fire was heard, no interceptor missiles were launched, and no Iranian fighter jets scrambled in response. This suggests that cyber operations may have disrupted Iran’s air defense systems in advance, leaving the country’s skies wide open to Israeli aircraft. In effect, Israel seems to have secured air supremacy, a crucial objective at the outset of any major conflict. Israeli jets penetrated deep into Iranian airspace without resistance, despite Tehran’s claims of possessing a dense, multilayered air defense system capable of deterring enemy incursions.
The Israeli airstrike was likely preceded by extensive electronic warfare operations that effectively blinded Iran’s defenses. Iranian radar systems were almost certainly disabled hours or even days in advance, a common tactic in modern warfare. The operation included electronic intrusion, jamming and deception, disrupting Iran’s military communications and command-and-control infrastructure. It is probable that false data was injected into radar and control systems, making the situation appear calm and routine — while stealth aircraft penetrated Iranian airspace at low altitudes. This explains the absence of any visible or audible Iranian defensive response during the initial waves of the Israeli strike.
This is hybrid warfare in its most complete form — a fusion of cyber infiltration, intelligence deception, radar jamming and seamless coordination between electronic warfare units and combat aircraft. The Israeli airstrikes were stealthy and achieved strategic surprise. At the forefront were F-35I Adir fighter jets, which are virtually invisible to traditional radar, especially when such systems have been disabled or jammed. These aircraft are engineered to eliminate targets without being detected. Equipped with long-range precision missiles, they didn’t even need to fly deep into Iranian airspace; instead, they launched their attacks from safe standoff ranges, after cyber operations had cleared the path.
Despite owning advanced systems like the S-300 and Iran’s domestically produced Bavar 373, Iran’s air defense network suffers from serious structural flaws. Its radars, missile launchers, and control centers are poorly integrated and often operate in isolation. This makes them vulnerable: once the command-and-control center is jammed or attacked, the entire defense system collapses, unable to detect or engage incoming threats.
Additionally, there was no real-time coordination between radar detection units, air defense platforms, and military decision-makers. Iran lacks an integrated early warning system or a reliable mechanism to track hostile aircraft over long distances, which rendered its response to the Israeli strike delayed — or in many sectors — non-existent.
More dangerous than the strikes themselves was the preceding intelligence collapse. For years, Israel monitored Iran, infiltrated agents, ran trial cyberattacks, and tested its air defenses through decoys and mock drills. Over time, Iran’s air defense infrastructure became an open book to Israeli intelligence. This allowed Tel Aviv to identify the establishment’s weakest point, striking when military readiness was low and combat preparedness incomplete.
Israel’s carefully crafted strategy of “strategic dispersion”— confusing and stretching Iranian defenses — succeeded. In this attack, Israel implemented the doctrine of smart warfare, combining intelligence integration, real-time surveillance, electronic warfare, and stealth aircraft, all synchronized through precise and seamless coordination.
This Israeli escalation also laid bare the stagnation in Iran’s military doctrine. Tehran appears to still operate under outdated combat strategies, relying on aging, non-integrated, and disconnected defensive systems. Crucially, there is an absence of agile strategic leadership capable of making real-time decisions in moments of crisis.
Even more telling was Iran’s sluggish response to air threats, highlighting glaring deficiencies in surveillance, early warning, tracking, and interception capabilities. In essence, Iran’s defenses failed to respond to a modern, multilayered attack. The result: a ruling establishment that presented itself as a regional powerhouse has been exposed as a paper tiger — loud in rhetoric but brittle in the face of precision warfare.
Repercussions of the Attacks and Iranian Reactions
Iranian reactions swiftly escalated, with official statements condemning the Israeli operation targeting Iran’s facilities. Tehran described the strikes as a blatant act of aggression and a violation of international law. In parallel, regional and international reactions reflected widespread alarm. Several countries voiced serious concerns over the implications of these attacks for Middle East stability and global security, warning that the escalation could spiral into a broader and more dangerous conflict.
The Supreme Leader
Following the Israeli attack, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei vowed a strong and decisive response. Addressing the Iranian people, he condemned the Israeli strikes, accusing the “Zionist regime” of committing a crime and targeting residential areas, which he described as proof of Israel’s “malicious nature.” Khamenei warned that Israel must await severe punishment, declaring that Iran’s military will not let this aggression go unanswered. He referred to the deaths of commanders and scientists as martyrdom, assuring the public that their roles would be immediately taken up by others. He concluded by stating that Israel has sealed its fate through this act, one that he promised would lead to bitter consequences.
The Iranian General Staff
The spokesman for the General Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Abu al-Fadl Shekarchi, declared that Iran’s armed forces will inevitably respond to what he described as a Zionist attack. He warned that Israel will pay a heavy price, adding that it must expect a strong and decisive retaliation from Iran’s military.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Iranian state media launched a campaign to mobilize public opinion, calling on citizens to prepare for a long war and urging steadfastness and patience. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi described the Israeli strikes as a blatant violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, asserting that Iran has the legal right to retaliate under Article 51 of the same charter.
In parallel, reports emerged of a swift reshuffling of top military leadership. Iranian media reported that General Ahmad Vahidi has been appointed as the new commander-in-chief of the IRGC, replacing Hossein Salami, while Admiral Habibollah Sayyari was named as chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces, following the deaths of senior commanders in Friday’s Israeli attack.
Through these measures, the Iranian establishment appears to be attempting to contain the fallout from the attack and reclaim the strategic initiative through a range of responses, the most notable of which include:
Vowing Retaliation
Iran has placed strong emphasis on its intention to respond. The supreme leader, the president and the military all confirmed that Iran’s retaliation will be unprecedented in scale and nature. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated that, under Article 51 of the UN Charter, Iran has the legal and legitimate right to respond to what it described as Israeli aggression. The spokesman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff underlined a unified internal position on delivering a painful and decisive response to Israel.
Filling the Void
Swift moves to fill leadership voids followed shortly after. The supreme leader appointed Habibollah Sayyari as interim commander-in-chief of Iran’s army, replacing Mohammad Bagheri, and Major General Ahmad Vahidi as IRGC commander-in-chief, succeeding Hossein Salami. These rapid appointments reflect Iran’s intent to reassert control and ready its military apparatus for a swift response. Both appointees are seasoned military figures known for their hardline stances and advocacy of offensive operations against Israel.
Regaining the Initiative and the Ability to Respond
The Israeli military confirmed that Iran had launched a retaliatory strike involving around 100 drones, marking the start of a broad Iranian counteroffensive. This response appears aimed at offsetting the shock of the initial Israeli assault, restoring morale, and demonstrating the establishment’s capacity to strike back despite the loss of top leadership. Iran’s strategy was to shift the battlefield equation, forcing Israel into a defensive posture rather than continuing its offensive inside Iranian territory.
In what followed, Iran launched six successive waves of drone and ballistic missile attacks targeting both civilian and military sites in Israel. These strikes reportedly caused unexpected Israeli losses, challenging the image of Israeli invulnerability that Netanyahu has projected. According to Iranian sources, a next wave may involve up to 2,000 missiles, with the scale of attacks increasing 20-fold, signaling continued Iranian escalation. In turn, Israel escalated its strikes against Iranian missile sites and civilian infrastructure to neutralize Tehran’s offensive capabilities.
Iran’s strikes caused severe damage across several Israeli cities, including Tel Aviv, Rishon LeZion, Ramat Gan, and Jerusalem. The Israeli government acknowledged three deaths and over 90 injuries, some critically. Additionally, nine buildings collapsed in Ramat Gan, hundreds of structures were damaged — including high-rises up to 50 storeys — and dozens of vehicles and vital infrastructure were destroyed. The attack displaced hundreds of civilians, with many trapped under rubble in Tel Aviv.
US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee described the night as “harsh,” saying he had to seek shelter five times during the bombardment. Israel confirmed the deaths of three people and the injury of 90 others, including those with severe injuries, in the missile bombardment that targeted large areas of Tel Aviv, Rishon Lezion, Ramat Gan and Jerusalem. Several individuals remain trapped under the rubble of collapsed buildings in Tel Aviv, where about nine buildings fully collapsed in Ramat Gan. Hundreds of other buildings were damaged, including those that are 32 and 50 stories tall. Iranian attacks destroyed dozens of vehicles and infrastructure, leading to the displacement of hundreds of residents from their homes. The Iranian strikes are aimed at civilian sites because they understand their impact on Netanyahu and his government. Civilians are the ones who bear the brunt of the war in Gaza, suffering significantly and urging Netanyahu to strike a deal and end the conflict with Hamas, due to poor economic and living conditions. Iran is aware of this dynamic and the influence that civilians have on Netanyahu.
Retraction of Statements Against Washington
After strongly worded Iranian statements against Washington, which did not differentiate between it and Israel, Iran retracted these statements, and began to focus their statements on Israel, in order to avoid expanding the confrontation with Washington. This is because Washington’s entry into the war line may have a significant impact on Iran and the establishment; the US impact will be definitely way stronger than that of Israel.
Regional and International Reactions
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
The Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs swiftly issued a statement strongly condemning the Israeli strikes on Iran, describing these as blatant acts of aggression that violate Iranian sovereignty and contravene international laws and norms. The ministry underscored the gravity of the situation, emphasizing that such actions threaten regional stability and global peace. Riyadh called on the international community, particularly the UN Security Council, to assume its responsibility in halting the Israeli escalation immediately.
So far, the Saudi position has been neutral but decisive toward the recent Israeli-Iranian escalation, with Saudi calls for calm and not being dragged into an all-out confrontation, in line with its cautious diplomatic approach since tensions with Iran calmed in 2023 under the auspices of China.
The United States
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio clarified that the United States was not involved in the “unilateral” Israeli strikes on Iran, emphasizing that Israel acted independently. “Rubio explained, Israel’s “ action was necessary for its self-defense.” Adding, “ President Trump and the Administration have taken all necessary steps to protect our forces and remain in close contact with our regional partners. Let me be clear: Iran should not target US interests or personnel.” He also conveyed a warning from President Donald Trump, who urged Tehran to return to negotiations, cautioning that any further planned attacks would provoke a far more devastating response.
Despite official US denials of involvement, several signs suggest prior coordination between Washington and Tel Aviv before the Israeli strike. Earlier this week, President Trump convened an emergency National Security Council meeting at Camp David, followed by a lengthy phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. These moves unfolded as nuclear negotiations stalled, with Tehran insisting on enriching uranium on Iranian soil, fueling a renewed war of words between Iran and the United States.
As the two-month deadline Trump had set for finalizing a deal approached, pessimism loomed over the talks. Meanwhile, Washington was reportedly informed of Israeli intentions to act unilaterally and began evacuating its citizens from the region. While the US denied direct involvement, analysts believe Washington deliberately kept its distance to use the Israeli strike as leverage in the upcoming negotiations, still scheduled for Sunday, June 15, in Muscat.
The United Nations
In a statement delivered by his spokesperson, UN Secretary-General António Guterres condemned Israel’s “military escalation” in the Middle East. The secretary-general expressed concern over the timing of the strikes, which came amid ongoing negotiations between Iran and the United States regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
Israel’s “military escalation” in the Middle East. The Secretary-General expressed concern over the timing of the strikes, which came amid ongoing negotiations between Iran and the United States regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
He urged both sides to exercise maximum restraint and warned against the risk of sliding into a broader conflict, stressing that “the region cannot bear the consequences of further escalation.”
Various International Reactions
Several countries swiftly condemned the Israeli strikes on Iran, including the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Oman, Jordan, Indonesia, Japan, Iraq, and Britain. as well as China and Russia condemning the initial Israeli strike on Iran It considered them a dangerous act that increases tension in the region, in an indirect reference to Israeli strikes inside Iran or through the airspace of other countries. On the other hand, they did not encourage Iran’s response, instead calling for restraint and refraining from steps that could lead to a full-scale war. This stance on both Beijing and Moscow stems from the fact that the continued tension will put them to a test of their ability to influence as mediators in calming this escalation; Russia, which is engaged in a conflict in Ukraine, seeks to establish its presence in the Middle East without engaging in new fronts. In contrast, Beijing is keen to maintain strong economic ties with both Iran and Israel, and therefore avoids taking sides in such situations.
The Implications for The Course of The Nuclear Talks
US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi were scheduled to meet in Muscat, Oman, on Sunday for the sixth round of nuclear talks. However, the Israeli strike has cast serious doubt over the meeting. Many observers now question whether negotiations can resume in the near future, given the scale of the losses Iran has suffered and the deep mistrust toward Washington, which Tehran accuses of implicitly supporting or greenlighting the Israeli operation.
Meanwhile, Israeli officials have hinted that military operations targeting Iranian sites may continue for up to two weeks, further jeopardizing the possibility of a quick return to the negotiating table.
Oman, which serves as a mediator in the nuclear talks between the US and Iran, condemned the Israeli strikes as a “dangerous escalation.” In a statement via its official news agency, Muscat held Israel responsible for the consequences and urged the international community to take “a clear and firm stance” against what it described as a threat to regional diplomacy and stability. Given the scale and timing of the Israeli attacks, reports have emerged suggesting that Iran is considering withdrawing from the nuclear negotiations altogether.
Seventh: Potential Scenarios for Mutual Direct Escalation
Based on the accumulated facts and Israel’s evident strategic objectives, the strikes appear aimed not merely at halting Iran’s nuclear progress but at cornering the Iranian establishment into a binary choice: either remain in power by abandoning its nuclear ambitions — particularly uranium enrichment and bomb development — and comply with US and Israeli demands, or face collapse.
This is evident in Israel’s deliberate targeting of top military officials closely tied to the establishment which signals a direct threat to its structural core.
With Iran rejecting the US demands and choosing instead to respond with a large-scale drone and missile barrage —some intercepted, others striking inside Israel and injuring civilians, damaging homes, and causing panic — several possible scenarios emerge:
Asserting the Force of Mutual Deterrence
The current phase of escalation between Israel and Iran suggests a developing scenario of attacks and counterattacks, with the potential for eventual containment. Israeli officials — especially Netanyahu — have hinted that the recent strikes on Iran were merely opening salvos, suggesting a series of follow-up strikes aimed at achieving Israel’s broader strategic goals. This is evidenced by new Israeli raids near Tabriz Airport in northwestern Iran.
In response, Iran appears determined to maintain retaliatory pressure via drone and missile attacks, reminiscent of previous operations such as True Promise 1 and True Promise 2. But this time, Iran must inflict substantial damage on Israeli targets to restore its deterrent image. A weak or ineffective response risks emboldening further Israeli aggression, including potential strikes on nuclear sites and key establishment figures.
The success of this scenario hinges on the strength and persistence of Iran’s military response. If Iran escalates effectively, Israel may reconsider the cost of continued aggression. If not, Israeli momentum may grow.
Meanwhile, regional powers — especially Saudi Arabia — are scrambling to contain the fallout. The Saudi Foreign Minister’s call to his Iranian counterpart, as well as conversations with Egyptian and Jordanian officials, reflect growing regional concern over war escalation. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s outreach to global leaders signals a serious effort at regional mediation to prevent full-scale war, which would severely destabilize the region.
Iranian Acquiescence in the Face of Israeli Power
This scenario suggests Iran may be forced to accept new regional realities — chief among these, Israel’s clear military and technological superiority, and Tehran’s inability to decisively confront it, especially amid internal vulnerabilities and exhausted regional proxies. From this standpoint, Israel’s offensive may have a dual aim: to militarily weaken Iran and to coerce it into political concessions, namely a complete halt to uranium enrichment under American-Israeli terms.
Yet, Iran’s announcement that it will not attend the nuclear talks scheduled for Sunday, June 15, 2025, in Muscat signals resistance. Despite President Trump’s expression of hope that Iran would return to the table, Iranian officials argue that negotiating under military fire is unacceptable. The official narrative remains firm: how can Tehran negotiate while its territory is under assault?
Thus, even if Iran were to internally acknowledge the power imbalance, publicly accepting such a situation is politically hazardous. Even worse still, such an admission could embolden Israel to intensify its strikes on Iran, aiming to further destabilize the Iranian establishment and potentially trigger profound systemic changes. Iranian decision-makers are unlikely to tolerate such a scenario.
The Return to Shadow Wars
Iran and Israel have long been engaged in a shadow war, and Iran may resort to utilizing its capabilities in this domain. These include targeting Israeli ships, launching cyberattacks, conducting espionage operations, carrying out cross-border assassinations, and striking Israeli interests and diplomatic missions around the world. Thus, even if Iran were to internally acknowledge the power imbalance, publicly accepting such a situation is politically hazardous.
Widening Escalation But Stopping Short of All-Out War
This suggests that the current round of escalation may widen to include regional groups aligned with Iran. Attention is focused on the possible involvement of the Popular Mobilization Forces and other armed militias operating from Iraq, potentially targeting US assets, given Iran’s assumption that the US is behind the Israeli attacks. Although Iran later softened its initial accusations, it continues to believe that an attack of such scale—striking senior officials, top military leaders, and key nuclear and military facilities — could not have occurred without some level of U.S. coordination. Additionally, several Iraqi militias have previously declared their readiness to act if Iran comes under attack. The Houthis and, potentially, Lebanese Hezbollah may also take part in this scenario.
Iran is also likely to reconsider its nuclear doctrine. Previously, Tehran used its nuclear program as a negotiating tool in its dealings with the West. But after the latest attacks, Iran is faced with a critical choice: either abandon uranium enrichment and accept U.S. conditions or move toward weaponizing its nuclear capabilities to establish a deterrent —an option that comes with significant risks and costs.
Iran may also take steps to disrupt maritime traffic in key regional waterways, either directly in the Arabian Gulf or indirectly through the Houthis in the Red Sea. The goal would be to raise the stakes for Washington, which Tehran views as Israel’s main backer and the only power capable of restraining it. Such disruption could trigger a rise in global oil prices — something Tehran considers a useful bargaining tool. Notably, oil prices spiked immediately after Israel launched its attack on Iran.
The Disastrous Scenario for the Region
The risk of a full-scale war involving the United States and Israel against Iran and its regional proxies is growing. This scenario becomes more likely if Iran refuses to yield and continues, along with its allies, to carry out repeated strikes on Israeli territory, launches large numbers of advanced ballistic missiles, introduces newer missile systems, or targets American bases and interests in the region. Israel is unlikely to retreat from its strategic objective of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, especially amid what Tel Aviv views as a rare historical opportunity. Prime Minister Netanyahu may see this moment as a chance to push for regime change in Iran, given Tehran’s weakened state and the current vulnerability of its regional proxies. This position may also reflect a shift in the stance of the U.S. administration, which appears increasingly aligned with the Israeli assessment that Iran is not serious about reaching a nuclear agreement and is instead using negotiations to stall for time. These sentiments were reflected in President Trump’s remarks following his 45-minute phone call with Netanyahu, a conversation widely seen as part of the coordination effort behind the current offensive.
Conclusion
Iran has sustained an unprecedented blow, placing its establishment under significant pressure and exposing it to one of its most serious tests yet. With limited options and a weak position in this confrontation, Tehran has launched what it calls “True Promise 3,” aimed at salvaging deterrence, restoring some balance with Israel and signaling to Washington a potential openness to negotiation, including the possibility of halting uranium enrichment on Iranian soil. The Iranian leadership appears to be seeking to project strength while quietly offering a diplomatic off-ramp. The United States, for its part, retains the ability to rein in Israel if needed.
Historically, the Iranian establishment has shown notable flexibility to avoid collapse and preserve its core institutions. Nevertheless, the current situation carries the risk of miscalculation or impulsive decisions that could drag the country into a broader conflict, one that Washington might find unacceptable. This could thrust Tehran into a perilous confrontation that endangers the establishment’s very survival. Although Iran still holds the nuclear option, any shift toward weaponization is unlikely to be tolerated by the international community and could provoke severe consequences. Among Iran’s chief concerns is the potential reactivation of United Nations sanctions through the Snapback mechanism, a move that would further isolate the leadership globally.
A key distinction between the Israeli and Iranian attacks lies in the shift in strategic dynamics. Israel’s strikes have altered the rules of engagement, are ongoing, and enjoy the backing of the United States and Western powers. In contrast, Iran’s retaliation appears to follow its established pattern of response and does not signify a significant escalation or recalibration of deterrence with Israel. So far, Tehran remains within the framework of its traditional response strategy.
Furthermore, Iran’s counterattacks are unlikely to garner international support. On the contrary, they may be met with renewed backing for Israel from the United States and other Western nations, while major powers like Russia and China have refrained from offering concrete support to Tehran. This highlights the strategic predicament Iran finds itself in — exposed diplomatically, with its leadership misjudging the evolving landscape and the consequences of its actions.
