Israel’s strike crippled Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and military leadership in a coordinated assault, exposing deep intelligence failures and reshaping the balance of power and diplomacy in the Middle East.
Israel’s strike on Iran was far more than just about destroying the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. It crippled Iran’s air defenses, hit the nuclear facilities and targeted top military officials, including the commander of the Islamic Republic Guard Corps.
“Israel’s strike on Natanz was not a limited tactical action, it was a multidimensional strategic takedown,” suggested geopolitical analyst Irina Tsukerman, president and founder of threat assessment firm Scarab Rising.
She told The National Interest that the damage to Iran’s premier uranium enrichment facility was catastrophic. What set the attack apart from past strikes, such as the 1981 raid that destroyed Iraq’s nuclear program, was how it resulted in the near-total decapitation of Tehran’s military and strategic brain trust in a single coordinated campaign.
“IRGC Commander Hossein Salami, long seen as the keystone of Iran’s hybrid warfare doctrine, was killed in a precision strike outside Tehran,” Tsukerman added.
Iran Supreme Leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei’s national security adviser, Ali Shamkhani, perhaps the regime’s most trusted crisis manager and internal mediator, was eliminated in Qom.
“Their deaths alone would have constituted a major strategic disruption,” said Tsukerman, who noted that the targeting went deeper.
“Gen. Mohammad Reza Hassani, commander of the IRGC’s integrated air defense systems, was killed in a strike near Shiraz, his death leaving Iran’s already overburdened and fragmented air shield wide open. Brig. Gen. Kaveh Nourani, director of ballistic missile development and the overseer of Iran’s Shahid Hemmat Industries Group, was also confirmed dead. His facility outside Semnan was reduced to twisted scaffolding and heat signatures.”
Others killed included Gen. Hamid Zamani, a key planner for Quds Force operations in Iraq and Syria, during a meeting near Esfahan. Two nuclear physicists, including Dr. Keyvan Daneshgar, head of cascade enrichment design at Fordow, and Dr. Farhad Jalili, a pioneer in isotope modeling and uranium metal experimentation, were also among those killed in the raid.
“These were not collateral casualties,” Tsukerman explained. “These were deliberate, high-value takedowns executed in synchronized sequence.”
This further sets it apart from past raids carried out by the IAF, including June 1981’s Operation Opera, which destroyed the Iraqi nuclear program. That mission included over a dozen American-made F-15 Eagles and F-16 Fighting Falcons.
“The biggest difference I see between the 1981 strike and this week’s events is a focus on a more comprehensive campaign,” explained Col. William “Burner” Dunn, United States Marine (Retired) and author of Gunfighters Rule!
“Israel not only attacked the nuclear facilities, but they also struck devastating blows to Iranian military leadership. By cutting the leadership out of the decision cycle, it will allow Israel more time to conduct its campaign before Iran can develop a more substantial response.”
Iran’s Intelligence Did Not Know About the Attack Beforehand
Israel’s Operation Rising Lion, which involved hundreds of aircraft that flew from the Jewish State to the Islamic Republic and back, also saw drones employed to help destroy Iran’s air defense systems. The use of small unmanned aerial systems (UAS) followed Ukraine’s drone strikes on Russia’s remote air bases less than two weeks earlier.
“What made the operation even more devastating was what it exposed: the sheer rot inside Iran’s and Russia’s intelligence architecture,” said Tsukerman.
“No one in Tehran expected this; Israel had quietly established a covert drone manufacturing site inside Iran’s light industrial zone, just miles from a military transport base. Iranian security forces never detected the components being funneled in, nor the stealth micro-UAVs that later mapped internal facilities and tracked command movements in real-time. That factory didn’t just support this operation, it mocked Iran’s security state from within.”
The drones, along with ground-based missiles smuggled into Iran by Mossad operatives, were crucial in ensuring Israel had air supremacy to carry out the attacks.
“In any air campaign, it is essential to eliminate the enemy’s air defenses at the earliest part of the campaign,” said
Dunn, a former MAG-40 Commanding Officer, led Marine attack helicopter operations through some of the Middle East’s most dangerous airspace.
He added that Israel’s efforts to take air defenses allowed the Israel Air Force to act with impunity.
“Once eliminated, it allows the attacking force to gain and maintain air superiority and possibly air supremacy,” Dunn told The National Interest.
“I would expect Israel to continue focusing efforts on destroying any of Iran’s ability to fight off Israeli air forces and would expect to see additional sorties attacking Iranian aircraft.”
Iran Ignores Trump’s Warnings that Israel Will Attack
Even though US President Donald Trump issued warnings on Thursday that such an attack on Iran could be imminent, the leadership in Tehran likely didn’t believe it would happen.
“In the days leading up to the strike, Israeli officials deliberately signaled deference to diplomacy, stating they would hold off until a potential sixth round of US-Iran nuclear talks,” said Tsukerman.
“Tehran’s leadership, overconfident and politically cornered, believed it. Senior officials, lulled by this calculated disinformation, convened in secure facilities like Natanz and Qom, which became target-rich environments. They were baited into vulnerability by the very restraint they believed would protect them.”
This strategic deception amplifies the political outcome in the Middle East.
“Iran’s deterrence posture, once premised on opaque red lines and retaliatory ambiguity, now lies in ruins,” Tsukerman told The National Interest.
“It cannot credibly threaten nuclear breakout with Fordow and Natanz offline, key scientists dead, and no chain of succession in place. Nor can it hide behind proxies without risking further decapitations.”
Though the Islamic Republic did retaliate, it was a matter of saving face rather than punishing Israel. It may have fired waves of drones and missiles at southern Israel, but almost all were intercepted.
“The real damage was not in Israeli territory,” said Tsukerman. “It was in Tehran’s perception of its invulnerability.”
Israel’s Success Is Good for the Trump Administration
For the Trump administration, this Israeli action could be a geopolitical windfall. The president had previously threatened to bomb Iran if a deal couldn’t be reached, and Northrop B-2 Spirit and Boeing B-52 Stratofortress bombers have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, likely to carry out such a mission should it have been deemed necessary.
“Trump’s foreign policy toolbox has never relied on incrementalism,” said Tsukerman.
“With Iran’s senior command shattered and its nuclear timeline pushed years backward, any resumption of talks will take place on American terms. This time, there will be no illusion of parity. If it chooses to, the US can walk into a sixth round with Tehran disoriented, leaderless, and hemorrhaging deterrence. That gives Trump leverage no American president has held since before the Iraq War. It can demand dismantlement, not just delay.”
The question is what it means for the nuclear deal. It would be wrong to suggest it is dead in the water.
“What’s happening now is a clear example of what Trump meant by maximum pressure,” explained foreign policy expert Harley Lippman, Dean’s Advisory Board member at Columbia University’s Graduate School of International and Public Affairs.
“The message being sent, especially by Israel, is that not only can they do significant damage to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, but they could go even further if needed,” Lippman told The National Interest.
He said the implication is clear: If Iran stops enrichment and comes to terms, a deal is possible, and Iran can avoid further conflict.
“Iran may have thought Israel and the US were bluffing,” said Lippman.
“This action proves they’re serious and willing to use force to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. It’s critical because Iran is uniquely dangerous in this space, it is the only country that has explicitly stated it wants to destroy another sovereign nation. No one loses sleep over nuclear powers like France or Germany, or even North Korea and China, they don’t make threats to annihilate other countries. Even India and Pakistan, who have a tense history, have signed protocols agreeing to no first use of nuclear weapons.”
That is what makes Iran a very different case.
“They’re reckless and irresponsible with their rhetoric and intentions,” said Lippman. “This pressure increases the likelihood of a deal, it introduces serious consequences, which tend to make parties more reasonable.”
Middle Eastern Nations See Israel’s Strikes on Iran as Weakness
The strikes have taken Tehran down a peg and may take years to recover.
“Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Jordan have all hardened their positions, not out of alignment with Israel, but out of confirmation that kinetic deterrence works when diplomacy stalls,” said Tsukerman.
“Even Qatar, long the regional go-between, is reassessing its proximity to an Iranian regime that has never looked weaker. Hezbollah is rattled. The Houthis are suddenly quiet. And Iranian-backed militias in Iraq, stripped of central command, are in a reactive posture for the first time in years.”
Tsukerman also suggested that Tehran is now faced with a choice: lash out recklessly and invite further decapitation, or absorb the humiliation and recalculate from a position of weakness.
“Either way, the old playbook, one built on ambiguity, delay, and intimidation, is gone. Replacing it will require clarity Tehran no longer possesses, and leadership it no longer has,” she added.
“What Israel executed was not just an airstrike. It was a doctrine. For the Trump administration, it opens the door to a diplomatic endgame that Iran never wanted but may now be forced to accept. The battlefield has spoken. The table is waiting. And this time, Tehran doesn’t get to set the terms.”
Will the US Stay in the Middle East After Israel’s Strike on Iran?
Notably, some in the MAGA crowd were vocal on social media, stating that Trump had campaigned to keep America out of foreign wars. He repeatedly said such conflicts wouldn’t have started had he been president, and his return to the Oval Office can’t make a miracle happen.
The question is whether the US might distance itself from the Middle East.
“Doing so would send the wrong signal to bad actors worldwide; it would give them a green light to pursue military action because they wouldn’t fear consequences,” warned Lippman.
“Consequences matter in every aspect of life. Just like we teach kids to brush their teeth to avoid cavities, or stop at red lights to avoid accidents, nations also respond to consequences,” he added. “Most countries in the world have border disputes or grievances with neighbors. If we remove deterrence and signal that they can get away with war, it opens a Pandora’s Box and leads to more armed conflict, not less.”
A US withdrawal could make the region less stable and result in the “forever wars” that Trump has sought to avoid.
“Trump meant that we shouldn’t get into wars without a clear strategic plan, with defined goals and an exit strategy,” said Lippman.
“The danger is that people misunderstand ’no more endless wars’ to mean avoiding all military conflict, even when necessary to establish deterrence. Yes, war is always bad, but sometimes it’s required to prevent even greater tragedies. For example, if in 1936 we had taken decisive action against Hitler, we might have prevented World War II and saved 60 million lives. Strategic, disciplined military action, when used wisely, can preserve peace, which should always be the goal.”
About the Author: Peter Suciu
Peter Suciu has contributed over 3,200 published pieces to more than four dozen magazines and websites over a thirty-year career in journalism. He regularly writes about military hardware, firearms history, cybersecurity, politics, and international affairs. Peter is also a Contributing Writer for Forbes and Clearance Jobs. He is based in Michigan. You can follow him on Twitter: @PeterSuciu. You can email the author: [email protected].
Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons/IDF Spokesperson’s Unit.
