Israel’s strike on Iran: how we got here, what we don’t know, and what happens next

JTA – Israel’s strike on Iran starting early on Friday morning, 13 June, followed a dizzying 24 hours in which the international community rebuked Iran for its nuclear malfeasance; Iranian officials said they would retaliate by accelerating nuclearisation; and signs piled up of a potentially imminent strike, along with warnings that Israel could be simply rattling sabres at a pivotal moment.

In the hours before the attack, experts in the region said they thought Israel’s aggressive posture, which prompted the United States (US) to begin moving some personnel out of the Middle East, could have been meant to extract concessions from Iran in its nuclear talks with the Trump administration. They noted that while tensions were rising between Iran and the West over Iran’s failure to abide by past nuclear agreements, no-one was yet taking concrete measures against Iran.

But the situation was fluid enough to worry longtime observers of the region. The threat of military pressure can take on a life of its own, Shira Efron, the research director for the Israel Policy Forum, who has advised Israeli governments on defence issues, said before Israel made its move.

“We can argue that the Israeli kinetic threat to attack Iran could be pressuring the sides to come to an agreement” that Israel favours, which would be the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear programme, she said. The problem with such pressure is that Israel can’t control the outcomes, she said.

“I would advise Israel to sit aside, let the US try to take its time in terms of trying to reach an agreement,” she said. She switched to Hebrew to cite a rabbinic saying, “The work of the righteous is done by others.”

US President Donald Trump on Thursday said talks with Iran to forge a deal on its nuclear capabilities were still ongoing. His top envoy negotiating conflict de-escalation, Steve Witkoff, was due in Oman early next week to continue talks with Iran.

“We remain committed to a diplomatic resolution to the Iran nuclear Issue!” Trump said on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns, on Thursday. “My entire administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran.”

He’d said the same thing earlier in the day. “I’d love to avoid the conflict,” Trump said at a press conference, asked about the prospects of an Israeli attack. “Iran’s going to have to negotiate a little bit tougher, meaning, they’re going to have to give us some things they’re not willing to give us right now.”

Witkoff was seeking a deal that would allow Iran and other countries access to uranium enriched to non-weaponisation levels at an offshore facility. Iran was insisting that such a facility be in Iran.

Trump’s oft-stated lack of enthusiasm for military action appeared to put a cramp on any Israeli plans to strike Iran; Israel by most estimations needs US backup to carry out an effective strike.

But Israel has increasingly been seeking to show that it can act alone. And Israeli officials told their US counterparts that Israel was ready to strike, CBS reported on Thursday, citing unnamed officials.

Asked about the imminence of an Israeli strike, Trump said, “I don’t want to say ‘imminent’, but it looks like it’s something that could very well happen.”

Here’s what you need to know about where the situation stood before Israel shook it all up with its pre-emptive strike.

What was happening in terms of pressure on Iran and its nuclear programme?

A majority of member nations of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), on Thursday voted to censure Iran for its non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory. Iran, the IAEA said, wasn’t allowing inspectors to reach key sites.

That could lead member nations to refer Iran’s non-compliance to the UN Security Council, which could snap back sanctions suspended in 2015, when the US, under President Barack Obama, brokered a sanctions-relief-for-nuclear-rollback deal between much of the world and Iran.

Trump exited the deal in 2018, saying it was worthless, but a number of nations are still parties. Some, especially in Europe, are itching to reimpose sanctions. European nations, eager a decade ago to come to a deal with Iran, are furious with the country for allying with Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. Britain, France, and Germany have set a deadline of August for Iran to comply, or they will start the snapback process.

Iran immediately bared its teeth, saying it would enhance its enrichment capabilities, launching a new site, and replacing ageing centrifuges.

“The Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to respond to this politically motivated resolution,” the foreign ministry said. “Additional measures are also being planned and will be announced in due course.”

Separately, Iran’s defence minister told reporters that if a breakdown in talks resulted in conflict, Iran would “target all US bases in the host countries”.

Trump on Wednesday confirmed that he ordered the removal of US non-essential personnel within striking range of Iranian missiles. “They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, we’ll see what happens,” Trump said, stopped by reporters as he entered the Kennedy Center. “We’ve given notice to move out and we’ll see what happens.”

Earlier this week, United States Central Command (Centcom) commander General Erik Kurilla told Congress he had laid out for Trump and his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, a “wide range” of military actions should talks fail.

But no-one had referred the IAEA censure to the National Security Council, so sanctions snapbacks weren’t yet on the table before the attack began.

So it looks like war. Is the US involved?

Trump has set multiple deadlines for a deal, but these have come and gone without consequence. One expires this week, which may explain the order to pull non-essential personnel from the region and Kurilla’s tough talk in Congress.

But in their most recent call on Monday, Trump told Netanyahu he preferred to wait out talks, Axios reported. And without US backing, Israeli strike options have long been seen to be limited.

Israel would likely need American air cover in a strike on nuclear facilities, powerful US bombs required to breach nuclear facilities buried deep beneath mountains, and American military assistance to repel a counterattack.

Israeli officials immediately put the entire country on high alert for a counterattack early on Friday, warning a barrage of missiles targeting civilians could be expected.

The Biden administration rallied to Israel’s side when Israel struck Iran last year in retaliation for Iranian backing for its enemies in its war against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah, and for an intense barrage of Iranian missiles on Israel.

The same pattern isn’t guaranteed under Trump, said Joel Rubin, a national security analyst who was Obama’s top liaison with Congress during the Iran deal. He noted that Trump recently brokered a deal with Houthi militias in Yemen that ended strikes on US ships traversing adjacent waters, but allowed the militias to keep striking Israel.

“The debate inside [Israeli] military circles is, if Israel were to strike without American support, A, would it be effective in any meaningful way? And B, what would Iran’s reaction be regionally?” said Rubin. “And based upon the fact that Trump was willing to walk away from protecting Israel from Houthi missiles, I think there’s a reason to believe that he wouldn’t come to Israel’s defence like Joe Biden did.”

Walla, an Israeli online news site, reported on Thursday evening that the Trump administration relayed to Netanyahu that it wouldn’t directly assist Israel in an attack on Iran. It wasn’t clear if indirect assistance, such as refuelling planes, was off the table, said the news site, which quoted two American officials.

It was unclear in the immediate aftermath of the attack what kind of strike Israel had conducted. Jason Brodsky, the policy director at United Against a Nuclear Iran, a group that for years has been advocating for the country’s denuclearisation, said beforehand that Israel could carry out a limited strike that could send a message.

“What they might do and what Trump might be more comfortable with, instead of a strike taking out the entirety of the nuclear programme, they might aim for a more limited strike to send a message to the Iranians that, you know, ‘this is what we’re capable of. It’s going to get worse for you if you continue to reject our overtures’,” he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is otherwise politically unpopular, may nonetheless have the backing of a nation still rattled by the 7 October 2023 Hamas massacre of hundreds of people inside Israel, which sparked the Gaza war.

“That triggered Israelis to be much more risk ready,” Brodsky said, pointing out that Israel may be emboldened by its successes in decapitating the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah. For years, Hezbollah’s massive presence in Lebanon was a deterrent to Israeli action against the terrorist group’s principal backer, Iran.

“This is a unique window of opportunity for Israel, given that Hezbollah is so defanged,” Brodsky said.

What happens next?

Israel’s attack is likely to do damage to Iran’s military programme, but none of its previous strikes have been seen as making substantial inroads against Iran’s nuclear programme.

And Iran is unlikely to back down from opposing total denuclearisation, said Barbara Slavin, a fellow at the Stimson Center, whose expertise is in the US-Iran relationship. Non-weaponised nuclear power is considered a national prerogative.

“This is really wrapped up in the whole notion of independence, which was so central to the Iranian Revolution, and it’s one of the few aspects of the revolution that I still think has resonance for ordinary Iranians who are otherwise furious with their regime,” she said.

Netanyahu’s sine qua non has been total denuclearisation, and Israel and its American backers won’t back away from it soon.

“Iran cannot be trusted to abide by international norms,” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerhouse lobby which led advocacy against Obama’s Iran deal, said in a tweet. “No enrichment. Complete dismantlement.”

Mark Dubowitz, the chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an influential think tank that has advocated for Iran’s containment, said removing enrichment capabilities was a must.

“The real sunset clause is January 2029, when Trump leaves office,” he said in a text message. “If Iran keeps its enrichment, [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei will wait him out and sprint for the bomb when American power looks weak again. And let’s be honest: the next president, Republican or Democrat, won’t scare him nearly as much as Trump does.”

The problem for opponents of the Iran-regime is that they are no longer pre-eminent in the Trump administration as they were in Trump’s first term. Trump has in recent weeks sacked an array of Iran hawks from top National Security Council positions, and leans toward the isolationism embraced by his vice-president, JD Vance.

“They’re not driving the bus, but they have an influence,” said Trita Parsi, the executive vice-president of the Quincy Institute, a leading think tank that advocates against military intervention. “They’re not in the lead any longer, because on fundamental issues, Trump sees that they’re not on the same page.”

Nothing could have emphasised the point more than when Israeli fighter jets lifted off early on Friday morning, flying to Iran to stage an attack in direct contravention of Trump’s preferences.