Iran, Israel, and the Future of the Middle East

June 25, 2025

Lindsey Zhao, Ty Tan, Arnav Goyal

Edited by: Lindsey Zhao and Blake McFalls

Introduction

Note to Reader: This paper is up to date as of June 24, 2025.

Israel and Iran have been political, military, and ethnic rivals for as long as Israel has existed as a nation. Yet, up until recent years, Israel has waged a “shadow war” with Iran, sticking to assassinations and avoiding high-profile, direct military confrontation with Iran. That political calculus has now shifted entirely following the deadly Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. Israel’s growing sense of insecurity has resulted in an increasing boldness in striking outside of its borders against Iran, a new policy most recently seen in Israel’s surprise bombardment of Iran on June 13 that targeted nuclear and military sites in Iran and killed at least a dozen top generals and nuclear scientists. Israel had assured the US it wouldn’t strike Iran unless negotiations over the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal) failed. Their attacks indicated that President Trump’s efforts to negotiate peace and a new nuclear deal hadn’t worked.

Iran has since retaliated with airstrikes on Israel, as state reports indicate at least 220 people have been killed in Israeli strikes and 24 people killed in Iranian attacks during this latest conflict. In one of their first attacks, Iran launched about 100 missiles towards Israel, most of which were intercepted by the renowned Iron Dome missile defense system. While Israel’s main goals in the war include causing regime change in Iran and decimating its nuclear capabilities, Iran wishes to maintain its ambiguously threatening nuclear weapons program in order to deter Israeli aggression. This deadly logic is only worsening nuclear escalation—Israel will never feel safe stepping down, as it would only make Iran more determined to pursue a nuclear weapon, and Iran wouldn’t do so either, as it could risk regime change in the nation.

They’re highly invested into this war. Now, the United States has been dragged into it as well. Late Saturday night, in an unexpected move, the US used B2 bombers to drop major missiles including “bunker-buster” bombs on major Iranian nuclear and military sites in an effort to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability. Iran’s foreign minister called the operation an "outrageous, grave and unprecedented violation" of the United Nations Charter and international law, and Iran vowed “everlasting consequences.”

Just two days later, on Monday, June 23, Iran struck back, hitting the American Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Even despite a tentative ceasefire announced by President Trump himself, the declaration of peace may not signal a true end to this decades long conflict. Through this special report, we will explore the tensions that led to this moment in history, the ripple effects of the United States’ decision to effectively declare war on Iran, and the implications for peace in the region.

History

Iran’s Nuclear Program

In understanding the current context of the Middle East, it’s imperative to set the stage for the Iranian nuclear dilemma, the impetus for essentially this entire war. Iran is considered a nuclear threshold nation—a nation on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon. A member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran asserts its nuclear program is authorized because the treaty gives members the right "to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," so long as they allowed review by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). However, joining the NPT as a founding signatory didn’t halt Iran’s nuclear research and development. Despite temporarily halting its nuclear energy program during the Iranian Revolution, Iran resumed its efforts in the 1990s, with investment from China and Russia providing the technical capacity to establish facilities, such as the uranium enrichment facility in Natanz and the heavy water enrichment facility in Arak. At that time, Iran followed the Amad Plan, seeking to build an arsenal of five nuclear weapons by 2004. Postponed due to international pressure, the years that followed saw Iran take a split path on nuclear development—overt and covert operations.

To hide its operations, Iran acted defiantly toward the IAEA in their attempts to monitor Iran’s nuclear progress in the early 2000s. Iran, despite emphasizing civilian nuclear projects like those in Natanz and Arak on the surface, used its specialized Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research (SPND) to render computer models of nuclear yield, simulating nuclear explosions with non-nuclear materials, manufacturing advanced detonation technology, and more. These sensitive, incremental steps toward owning a nuclear weapon didn’t go unnoticed, as the IAEA expanded its efforts to uncover Iran’s undeclared nuclear sites. For Iran, however, its biggest barrier to nuclear weapons remained uranium enrichment, meaning that the IAEA’s watchdog status prevented the procurement of sufficiently enriched uranium.

To prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon, diplomatic efforts toward Iran ramped up in the early 2000s. Iran’s growing belligerence toward the IAEA saw it blatantly ignore standards, leading to the development of enriched uranium at the level of 3.6%. As the UNSC sought frameworks to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment program, diplomatic urgency reached new heights when the covert Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) was uncovered. As Iran continued apace in its nuclear enrichment, the diplomatic talks that would lead to an Iranian nuclear deal were underway.

Beginning in 2012 and following serious negotiations in October 2013, Iran and the P5+1 reached a preliminary agreement in the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA). In it, specific implementable steps were outlined for Iran to follow in denuclearizing, such as:

Halting enriched uranium production to 20%
Diluting existing stockpiles of 20% enriched uranium
Increasing IAEA monitoring and access to Iranian nuclear facilities

Later in July 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was announced, further committing Iran to more precise measures, ranging from reducing its operational capacity of centrifuges to limiting enrichment to 3.67% for 15 years. In return, P5 + 1 nations would remove almost all U.N. Security Council sanctions placed against Iran, alongside other unilateral sanctions placed by the US and EU. With the JCPOA conditions accompanied by UN Resolution 2231, which “…suspended previous U.N. sanctions resolutions while continuing an arms embargo against Iran for five years and restrictions on Iran’s missile program for eight years,” it seemed like Iran was blocked from nuclear enrichment and the world could leave the issue to a monitored control.

However, when Donald Trump pulled out of the JCPOA in May of 2018 on dubious claims of a lack of Iranian transparency, Iran retaliated by ignoring limitations set by the JCPOA. In 2023, UN inspectors reported nearly weapons-grade uranium present in the nation. Iran’s expanding nuclear policy has seen it acquire a stockpile of uranium enriched to 60% sufficient for nuclear weapons, alongside conducting experiments and expanding missile manufacturing. With facilities in sites like Fordow leading the charge, Netanyahu’s decades-long fearmongering of Iran being on the verge of a nuclear weapon appears justified. Since Iran sits at the precipice of developing a nuclear weapon, the violent conflict proliferation following the events of October 7, 2023, led by Israel against Iran has become better understood.

The New War with Israel

For years, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that Iran would have a nuke “in 6 months.” The threat of an Iranian attack with a nuclear weapon has kept Israel on edge. This is in line with history, in which, to be brief, Israel’s existence has put it at odds with Iran’s government. A more extensive history of Israeli-Iranian tensions can be found here.

When the Iranian proxy, Hamas, launched an assault from Gaza on Israel on October 7, 2023, Israel was swift to respond. The following months saw unprecedented violence, and as of January 2025, 46,700 people have been killed in Gaza, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry.

Yet, as Hamas failed to give up, Israel’s decision to attack a diplomatic facility in Damascus that killed seven Iranian military officials was a clear miscalculation. The event saw Iran and Israel enter a dangerous month-long back-and-forth conflict. Iran sent more than 300 missiles and drones to Israel on April 13, and Israel destroyed part of an air defense system in Isfahan, Iran, on April 19. These strikes were aimed at recalibrating aggression in the region, simply flaunting each nation’s violent potential to threaten important sites in either nation. The nations of Israel and Iran were able to de-escalate following this major event, giving relief to the international community.

Everything changed on June 12, 2025, when Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, sending volleys of missile strikes all across Iran. Targeting nuclear infrastructure in Natanz and Fordow, the assault seriously damaged Iranian nuclear capacity while also killing dozens of top generals and scientists. Iran retaliated hours later, launching strikes on “dozens of targets, military centres and air bases,” with the full extent of the retaliatory strikes realized through a missile strike on Beersheba, Israel. The renewed escalation of the Israeli-Iran conflict has a clear motive on the side of Israel. Iran has long been seen as the ultimate enemy of Israel. Netanyahu has recited slogans like “It’s 1938 and Iran is Germany … The Jewish people will not allow a second Holocaust” for years. Although his words have long been dismissed as alarmist, Netanyahu’s fear of Iranian nuclearization prompted Operation Rising Lion, an act of ultimate self-defense. As the violence continued to proliferate, Israel sought support from a powerful ally.

The US Attack

Late on Saturday, June 21, 2025, with the backing of Israeli officials, President Donald Trump authorized strikes against the Iranian nuclear sites of Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, with Tomahawk missiles dropped on Natanz and Isfahan and “bunker-buster” bombs dropped on Fordow (alternate spelling: Fordo), widely regarded as Iran’s most important (and most secure) nuclear site. The US is the only country with the capability to drop such large bunker-buster bombs, as the Israeli military and other militaries across the world do not possess such powerful weapons. While the Israeli military has long regarded Fordow as a serious threat to their national security, they needed the US to interfere if they wanted to be able to reach Fordow, a nuclear site buried deep under a mountain. Fordow is deeper underground than the Channel Tunnel from England to France.

Immediately after, US officials claimed that much of Iran’s enriched uranium and nuclear capabilities were destroyed, while Iran claimed the opposite. In contrast, President Trump claimed they were obliterated in a speech right after the attack. In that same speech, he also pushed Iran to negotiate, warning that otherwise, there would be consequences that would be far worse than what happened during the strikes. He also claimed that the strikes were to further national security, pointing to chants like “Death to America,” and “Death to Israel” from some Iranians.

The Fordow nuclear site is one of two uranium enrichment sites (the ones claimed to house enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon) located in Iran, with the other one being the Natanz Nuclear Facility, which Israel already heavily bombarded during their surprise attack on Iran two weeks prior. However, due to these previous strikes, the United States did not use bunker buster bombs on the Natanz facility, using 30 Tomahawk missiles instead.

Unfortunately, US strikes appeared to have had a limited impact. An internal US intelligence assessment found that instead of being obliterated, Iranian nuclear sites were set back by mere months, not years, as US officials had hoped. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer remarked in a speech on the Senate floor that the administration’s actions were outrageous, and slammed them for a lack of transparency.

Implications

In Deep Water, Domestically

At least for now, the Trump administration isn’t considering further attacks unless Iran retaliates, and in an interview with NBC News, Vice President JD Vance claimed that war wasn’t waged on Iran, but rather, Iran’s nuclear program, in a clear attempt to smooth over the Trump administration’s political signaling. Many politicians on both sides of the aisle quickly condemned the attack as a declaration of war and an unnecessary provocation in terms of the Iran-Israel conflict. (Note: While critics—particularly online—have argued he was legally required to get Congressional approval, the Article II powers endowed to the executive include authority to order the use of military force to defend the United States and advance national interests. Congress may be needed to officially declare war, but they have never been needed for the president to order every military action.)

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have worried about Trump’s actions. Even far-right Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) expressed hesitancy, posting on X that this was “not our fight” and apparently lamenting the US’s involvement in yet another foreign war. One Republican Representative, Thomas Massie from Kentucky, co-introduced a resolution with Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna from California to require congressional approval before any strike. Rep. Massie argued there had been “no imminent threat” to the US to justify the unilateral strikes against Iran without consulting Congress first. A similar resolution has been introduced in the Senate.

On the other hand, some have defended the attacks—mostly Republicans, but some Democrats as well—including Democratic Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, who said in an X post, “As I’ve long maintained, this was the correct move by @POTUS. Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism and cannot have nuclear capabilities. I’m grateful for and salute the finest military in the world,” corroborating speculation that some Democrats, especially those who are heavily pro-Israel like Fetterman, support the attack on Iran.

However, that hasn’t stopped Americans from becoming increasingly opposed and worried about a potential World War 3. A snap poll from YouGov that came out 24 hours after the US attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities found that 35% supported the strikes, and 49% disapproved of them, signaling major opposition to the strikes. Moreover, bipartisan fear about a potential ground invasion has sent people into panic mode. Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona recently said that Trump’s actions would only put American troops in more harm, only worrying Americans further. Naturally, this has also led to a rise in content directed around World War 3, with videos about missile strikes being front and center on algorithms and WWIII becoming a trending hashtag on X.

The Effects of Iranian Retaliation

Just two days after American airstrikes, Iran retaliated against the largest American military base in the Middle East, Al Udeid in Qatar. So far, Iran seems careful to send a message that it will not be cowed while avoiding any actions that could lead to inevitable escalation. While they attacked Al Udeid, the largest American military base in the Middle East, they gave the Trump administration advance warning and all 14 missiles were intercepted with no reported injuries. Iran has already lost half of its stock of 3,000 missiles, so any further attacks like the one on the American air base in Qatar will have to be cautiously planned to prevent the depletion of their missile stockpiles.

In the future, they could also utilize proxy organizations like the Houthis to attack US and Israeli regional bases, which could worsen Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, a critical global shipping point.

The Iranian Parliament also just approved a measure to close the Strait of Hormuz, a move that would devastate the global economy—it’s a critical global oil choke point that controls, for example, 50% of the oil that China receives. While the final decision will lie with the Supreme National Security Council, closing the strait would cut off more than a quarter of global maritime oil trade and a fifth of the global LNG (liquified natural gas) trade, most of which is exported from Saudi Arabia and Qatar, respectively. Even before Iran has made a final decision, oil prices have climbed nearly 3%, indicating trader concern that has not yet reached outright panic. However, some uncertainty is present in the oil market due to such considerations by Iran. The global shockwaves Iran can send has many in the region worried.

A second implication of an Iranian retaliation is in regards to diplomatic signalling. As Iran retaliates and escalates the violence, it is signalling a “death to diplomacy” attitude, shying away from cooperation by rejecting diplomatic forums. This translated into the end of planned talks in Oman before Israeli attacks, demonstrating a troubling future. The shift away from diplomacy can pose trouble for future diplomatic efforts, as the entire world seeks to de-escalate tensions in the Middle East.

Regime Change, Perchance

Most of all, however, the escalation of violence between Israel and Iran could significantly impact the government of Iran. One of Israel’s implicit goals in its assault on Iran is to promote regime change in Iran. They hope that the chaos created by American and Israeli attacks could pave the way for a long-suppressed opposition to finally take power. The overthrow of Ayatollah Khamenei, who has served as Supreme Leader of Iran since 1989, could destabilize the country and benefit Israel geopolitically. By removing Iran, the danger presented by its substantial military will be pacified.

While that might be what Israel is hoping for, Narges Bajoghli, an associate professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, thinks it will not be so easy. Even though public dissatisfaction and unrest in Iran are still relatively high, the US attack on Iran appeared to be an unprovoked invasion when Iran was in the middle of negotiations. Bajoghli explains that this has resulted in a general rallying around the flag effect, at least for now. President Trump expressed openness to the idea of regime change in Iran in a post on Truth Social, indicating it could happen with the support of the United States. Yet, as several world leaders, including French Prime Minister Emmanuel Macron, noted recently, there is no clear plan for “the day after” should a coup actually occur in Iran. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed optimism that a coup could turn out like Syria, where a transitional government quickly took power and made positive progress with the West. But, since there is no clear, organized opposition in the country like that of Syria’s HTS, this kind of result is fairly unlikely, yet worryingly possible.

So…Are We Doomed?

In advance of incoming Iranian strikes on Al Udeid, Qatar had temporarily closed its airspace to protect its own national sovereignty. While it is open now, and all 14 missiles were safely deflected by Qatari and American missile systems, fears over the continued violation of their airspace remain.

Iran’s Parliament also passed a bill just a few days ago that would suspend the country’s cooperation with the IAEA and move their “peaceful nuclear program” ahead more quickly. Reports indicate they have already moved their stockpiles of enriched uranium following American strikes.

Yet, the relationship between Iran and the United States may not be irreparable. President Trump posted on Truth Social the same day as the Al Udeid strikes, claiming that 13 of the 14 missiles were intercepted by various air defense systems, and 1 of them was “set free,” due to its “nonthreatening direction.” Most notably, he mentioned a desire to make peace and did not threaten to explicitly retaliate, due to the strikes being “very weak.”

This already signals a slight warming of relations between Iran and the United States—just a few days prior, Iran had vowed to retaliate with full force, and Trump had threatened even graver consequences during a televised address to the nation.

Surprisingly, both countries—and Israel—reached a ceasefire shortly after. President Trump announced an outline for a ceasefire Monday evening, which has been acknowledged by all three parties. The terms aim for a 12 hour cessation of hostilities, after which the war will be considered ended.

Trump detailed the ceasefire proposal in a post on Truth Social.

President Trump has called it the “12 Day War,” a play on names pertaining to the 6 Day War, where Israel exchanged strikes with a host of states including Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq. The 6 Day War fundamentally reshaped the Middle East, creating divisions and maps that still occur today, such as the present map of Israel. Moreover, the war led to the fleeing of millions from various regions such as Gaza, similar to how there was a mass exodus from Tehran after Israel’s first wave of strikes on Iran.

Admittedly, this ceasefire is not perfect. Politicians on both sides have raised questions as to how both parties will halt tensions in the long term, especially if Iran refuses to make concessions over its nuclear program. Moreover, there have still been continued hostilities just hours before the ceasefire was bound to take effect, putting into question the efficacy of the ceasefire. After the ceasefire initially faltered Tuesday morning, Israel and Iran appeared to stop the fighting, with President Trump “venting frustrations” with both sides.

As the situation on the ground changes by the day, the ceasefire shouldn’t result in negligence from the American government. Rather, it should be viewed as a time to recalibrate amongst the chaos and disorder in the region by looking at what can be done to reduce tensions and violence permanently.

Attacks against Iran are being used as a tool by both the US and Israel to pacify the nation into submission. Although this violent method is controversial, sanctions played a similar role in crippling Iran to force them to the negotiating table. Thus, with the Trump announcement of an Israeli-Iran ceasefire, the next step toward a lasting peace should be taken: diplomacy.

Ideally, the US and other nations can work together to re-negotiate a new JCPOA—one that has concrete, specific steps that keep Iran’s nuclear production under a permanent watch. The conditions must also have a high incentive for Iran, most likely removing barriers that have made it an international pariah. Doing so could end Israeli-Iranian violence, while also promoting peacemaking and reconciliation in the region. Although the realism in this potential solution is practically nonexistent, it's important to remain hopeful in this period of fear.

Ultimately, the history of the Israeli-Iranian conflict indicates that neither nation is ready to give up the fight. Yet, as the world continues to get involved, the world may not be as doomed as it seems, and World War 3 is looking less likely…for now.

Google Sites

Report abuse