On June 12, the United States’ self-imposed 60-day deadline to reach a nuclear deal with Iran expired — without any agreement in sight. After five fruitless rounds of talks, the diplomatic window closed, and the next day, the IAEA’s Board of Governors passed a resolution accusing Iran of violating its international nuclear safeguards.
Tehran responded by announcing plans to replace old IR-1 centrifuges at the Fordow nuclear facility with more advanced IR-6 models and to begin constructing a new uranium enrichment plant.
Just hours later, in the early hours of June 13, Israel launched a massive aerial assault on Iran, involving approximately 200 aircraft targeting nearly 100 strategic sites across the country, according to Israeli military sources.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared that the strikes were the start of a multi-day operation to neutralise an “existential threat” — referring to Iran’s alleged race to acquire nuclear weapons within a short timeframe.
The Israeli attack targeted critical nuclear infrastructure, including uranium enrichment sites in Natanz, Khondab, Khoramabad, and areas around Tehran. In addition, it struck missile production factories, air defence systems, command centres, and residential areas housing senior IRGC commanders, military officials, and nuclear scientists — resulting in civilian casualties.
In response, Iran launched over 100 drones toward Israeli territory, triggering a nationwide state of emergency. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed retaliation amid what analysts are calling the most dangerous confrontation in the history of Israeli-Iranian hostilities.
What Did Israel Achieve? Tactical Success, Strategic Uncertainty
A closer look at Israel’s target map reveals that its operation went beyond the nuclear program — aiming instead to strike at the foundations of Iran’s military and political command. The first wave of attacks appeared designed to disrupt command and control, paralyse Iran’s immediate response capability, and create confusion within Tehran’s security apparatus.
Militarily, the air raids inflicted tactical damage on some of Iran’s nuclear and missile assets. Key achievements included:
- Damaging parts of Natanz, Iran’s main uranium enrichment site.
- Striking suspected warhead research labs and centrifuge warehouses.
- Targeting missile launch platforms in Isfahan and Imam Ali Base.
- Assassinating IRGC senior officers and missile program figures to cripple Iran’s leadership chain.
Perhaps the most consequential outcome was the targeted killing of elite nuclear scientists — a blow far harder to recover from than military officer replacements. As experts note, scientists with decades of specialised nuclear knowledge are difficult, if not impossible, to replace.
Reports also suggest Israel may have infiltrated Iranian airspace with pre-positioned drones, launched from within the country — a possible major intelligence breach.
This marks Iran’s most severe exposure in decades, raising serious concerns over the resilience of its internal defence architecture.
But the critical question remains: Did Israel eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat?
Can the Nuclear Program Be Erased?
Numerous analysts, including former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense Daniel Shapiro, have concluded that no Israeli strike—no matter how powerful—can fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear capability. At best, it may delay progress by a few months to a couple of years.
Iran still possesses:
- The technical know-how and scientific personnel,
- A significant stockpile of highly enriched uranium,
- And likely secret fortified locations where enrichment may continue undisturbed.
The historical precedent backs this theory. After Israel’s 1981 strike on Iraq’s Osirak reactor, Iraq quietly rebuilt its nuclear program. It came close to a breakthrough in the 1990s—until the Gulf War halted its momentum.
Today, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is more advanced, widespread, and better protected.
Iran’s Response Options — And Strategic Constraints
Tehran has pledged a response. But its options come with constraints:
- No Shared Border: Israel and Iran are separated by over 1,500 km, ruling out traditional ground or short-range air retaliation.
- Airpower Limitations: Iran’s air force is outdated and lacks the capability to strike deep inside Israel or challenge its advanced aerial dominance.
- Israel’s Air Defence Systems: From Arrow and David’s Sling to the Iron Dome and American THAAD batteries, Israel’s layered missile shield remains formidable.
While a few Iranian ballistic missiles reached Israeli cities in October 2024, most were intercepted. A repeat strike may land some hits, but the strategic impact remains questionable — unless Tehran escalates unconventionally.
Iran’s Practical Tools: Drones, Missiles, and Proxy Forces
Iran’s most likely military response will rely on:
- Medium and long-range ballistic missiles,
- Armed drones with improved targeting accuracy (often developed in collaboration with Russia),
- And proxy operations via its regional allies in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen.
However, this “Axis of Resistance” is itself under pressure:
- Hezbollah is politically constrained within Lebanon.
- Iraqi militias are monitored by U.S. intelligence.
- Houthis have limited reach, despite their growing capabilities.
Even so, Tehran may still activate these partners for symbolic or retaliatory strikes—reinforcing the ideological and strategic bonds of the Resistance Axis.
Cyberwarfare: Iran’s Silent Weapon
One of Iran’s most potent and low-risk options is cyberwarfare. It requires:
- No missiles, no direct confrontation,
- Offers deniability,
- And enables psychological and economic disruption inside Israel.
Iran has built a robust cyber army, capable of targeting:
- Power grids,
- Financial networks,
- Airports and public transportation,
- Or critical communication systems.
Over the past decade, Iran has launched successful cyberattacks on Israeli water and energy infrastructure. A larger, coordinated offensive could:
- Spread panic,
- Cripple daily life,
- And fracture public trust in the Zionist regime’s security.
Even Israel’s elite cyber unit Unit 8200 cannot guarantee airtight protection—one exploited vulnerability is all it takes to trigger a paradigm shift.
The Nuclear Card: Tehran’s Last Move?
If Iran feels its deterrence has failed, and that its patience has become a liability, it may consider crossing the nuclear threshold — either publicly or covertly.
That scenario could include:
- Withdrawing from the NPT (Non-Proliferation Treaty),
- Expelling IAEA inspectors,
- And openly enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels.
This path would present Iran as a nuclear power-in-waiting, gaining symbolic and strategic leverage. But it also risks triggering U.S. or NATO intervention.
Still, it remains a pressure card in Tehran’s deck—one it may play only if all other responses prove ineffective or insufficient to restore deterrence.
