Archive June 13, 2025

Israel has begun its long-signalled attacks on Iran with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying they would continue “as long as necessary”.

The attacks, which began early on Friday, appear to have been carefully planned, hitting military and government targets and killing several senior military leaders – including the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Hossein Salami, and the chief of staff of the armed forces, Mohammad Bagheri. Prominent Iranian nuclear scientists are also among the dead.

The strikes took place despite negotiations between Iran and Israel’s principal ally, the United States, over the future of Tehran’s nuclear programme, leading many to suspect that the threat of Israeli action was a coordinated ploy to bring additional pressure onto Iran.

Moments ago, Israel launched Operation “Rising Lion”, a targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival.

This operation will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat.

——

Statement by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: pic.twitter.com/XgUTy90g1S

US support remains vital to Israel. As well as serving as the country’s principal armourer, Washington also acts as a permanent shield against criticism of Israel in the United Nations, frequently using its veto in the UN Security Council to halt any official censure of its ally despite allegations of Israel’s repeated breaches of international law.

And an attack against Iran – a powerful regional force with allied groups across the Middle East – is ultimately a risky move for Israel, which is expecting an Iranian response, and the US, which has soldiers deployed across the region.

So, given the stakes, why would Israel attack Iran and why now? Here’s what we know:

Did Iran pose an imminent nuclear threat to Israel?

Israel’s military superiority in the Middle East comes not just through its conventional arsenal or the backing of the US, but from the advantage it has that no other country in the region does: nuclear weapons.

Israel is widely acknowledged to have nuclear weapons although it has never publicly admitted it.

An Iranian nuclear weapon would take away that advantage and is, therefore, a red line for Israel. For years, Israel – and particularly Netanyahu – has insisted that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, even as Tehran has insisted that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.

Justifying the Israeli attack, Netanyahu said Iran could have produced “a nuclear weapon in a very short time – it could be a year, or it could be a few months”. An unnamed Israeli military official was also quoted as saying Iran had “enough fission material for 15 nuclear bombs within days”.

What is the non-Israeli assessment of Iran’s nuclear capabilities?

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported on Thursday that Iran had failed to uphold the obligations it had signed on to as part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, an accusation Iran quickly rejected.

The IAEA also noted what it believed was a long history of noncooperation between Iran and its inspectors. However, it didn’t say that Iran had developed nuclear weapons.

As part of a 2015 deal with the US, other Western countries, China and Russia, Iran agreed to limit its nuclear programme and allow the IAEA to regularly inspect its facilities in return for relief from the crippling sanctions that it was under.

However, in 2018, US President Donald Trump – then in his first presidential term – unilaterally withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions.

The US has, however, not found that Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons or attempting to do so. In March, US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said the US “continues to assess that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003”.

Why else would Israel attack Iran?

Netanyahu has previously described Iran as “the head of the octopus” with “tentacles all around from the Houthis to Hezbollah to Hamas”. The idea is that Iran is at the head of a network of anti-Israeli groups across the region known as the “axis of resistance”.

Since starting the war in Gaza in October 2023, Israel has been able to severely weaken both Hamas and Hezbollah, limiting their abilities to attack Israel. The top leaders of both organisations have been almost entirely taken out, including important figures, such as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar and Ismail Haniyeh.

The attacks on Hezbollah in particular were not met with the kind of blowback that many in Israel feared, allowing hawks in Israel to argue that their country has an unprecedented opportunity to continue to target its enemies, including Iran, and reshape the entire Middle East. Some may think the opportunity is even there for regime change in Iran – although that would likely require a far longer war than Israel has the capability to conduct.

That is despite there being no direct confrontation since last year between Israel, Iran or any of its allies before Friday’s strikes by Israel. Neither had there been any threat of action, other than that of counterstrikes if Israel did attack.

Was there a domestic political component to Israel’s strikes on Iran?

Many in Israel accuse Netanyahu of making military decisions – including in the war on Gaza, where Israel has killed more than 55,000 Palestinians – on the basis of his own political considerations.

In the eyes of his critics, Netanyahu has become dependent upon conflict, both with Iran and in Gaza, to maintain his coalition. The alternative is to risk the collapse of his government and a public reckoning with his own failings ahead of the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, which killed 1,139 people, as well as a potential prison sentence as a result of the multiple corruption charges he faces.

“For Netanyahu, the difference between foreign and domestic politics cannot be distinguished,” Israeli political analyst Ori Goldberg said. “There was no imminent threat to Israel. This was not inevitable. The [IAEA] report did not contain anything suggesting Iran posed an existential threat to Israel.”

Most politicians in Israel have rallied around the military since the strikes on Iran. On Thursday, Netanyahu’s coalition had only survived a vote to dissolve the parliament and trigger elections after reaching an 11th-hour compromise over the contentious exemption of ultra-Orthodox youth from the draft.

But now, Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid has praised the attacks on Iran, and left-wing politician Yair Golan has also backed the strikes.

Netanyahu’s decision to strike at Iran had been borne of the “stress” of his political position and his addiction to blood and force, left-wing Israeli member of parliament Ofer Cassif told Al Jazeera.

To Cassif’s regret, however, the move appeared to have won the support of the parliamentary opposition.

Has Israel again broken international law in striking Iran?

According to some legal experts, yes.

Israel has already been accused of breaching countless international laws through its 20-month-long war on Gaza.

And the strikes on Iran may mark a new chapter in the country’s breaches of international law, Michael Becker, a professor of international human rights law at Trinity College in Dublin, told Al Jazeera. “Based on publicly available information, Israel’s use of force against Iran does not fit within the inherent right of self-defence enshrined in the UN Charter.”

Boeing and GE Aerospace are scaling back their public activities following the fatal crash of an Air India jetliner, with the planemaker’s CEO cancelling his trip to the Paris Airshow next week and GE postponing an investor day.

More than 240 people were killed when an Air India Boeing 787 jet bound for London crashed moments after taking off from the city of Ahmedabad on Thursday, authorities said, in the world’s worst aviation disaster in a decade.

Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg said in a message to staff on Thursday evening that he and Boeing Commercial Airplanes boss Stephanie Pope had cancelled plans to attend the Paris Airshow “so we can be with our team and focus on our customer and the investigation.”

The airshow, which runs from June 16 to June 20 at Le Bourget, is the global aviation industry’s largest trade show, where typically many aircraft orders are placed by airlines.

Ortberg had been due to attend for the first time as Boeing CEO since being appointed to lead the company out of a series of back-to-back safety, industrial and corporate crises.

Aircraft engine maker GE Aerospace, whose engines were in the Boeing 787 plane, had planned an investor day on June 17, coinciding with the show.

GE said the briefing had been cancelled and it would put a team together to go to India and analyse data from the crashed aeroplane.

“GE Aerospace’s senior leadership is focused on supporting our customers and the investigation,” the company said. It said it planned to give a financial update later this month.

Safety experts stressed it was too early to speculate why one of the world’s most modern airliners should crash shortly after takeoff. Accidents in that phase of flight are rare, said Paul Hayes, safety director at UK consultancy Cirium Ascend.

The Indian investigation of the crash is currently focusing on the engine, flaps and landing gear, Reuters reported on Friday, citing an unnamed source, as the country’s regulator ordered safety checks on Air India’s entire Boeing-787 fleet.

Under global aviation rules, India will lead the probe with support from NTSB investigators in the United States, who will, in turn, liaise with Boeing and GE on technical matters.

The reduced attendance plans came as delegates said the crash had cast a sombre mood over the airshow, putting in doubt several order announcements and putting safety back in the spotlight alongside concerns about US tariffs.

The world’s largest aviation trade expo, running from June 16 to 20 in Le Bourget, usually gives aircraft and arms manufacturers a key stage to showcase deals and sets the tone for a global supply chain already under pressure from shortages.

Boeing shares were down Friday, falling 3.8 percent, while GE Aerospace was down 2.4 percent.

Fewer deals

Boeing has cancelled some events and is unlikely to make any commercial order announcements at the show, though it will press ahead with low-key briefings on other topics, delegates said.

One key expected announcement had been a potential order for dozens of Boeing jets, including the 787 from Royal Air Maroc. But the airline plans no announcement at the show, and this will also affect Airbus, which had been expected to sell it some 20 A220s, industry sources said.

None of the companies had any comment on specific deals.

Airbus CEO Guillaume Faury on Friday expressed condolences over the accident, and the world’s largest planemaker was expected to observe a muted tone surrounding what had been expected to be a busy week for orders to meet high demand.

One delegate said business would continue but with fewer of the high-profile news conferences and in-person announcements associated with the industry’s biggest commercial showcase.

Another said some order announcements could be delayed until later in the year as a mark of respect for victims.

“The show will be a lot more sombre, less celebratory,” said a delegate involved in planning one such announcement, speaking anonymously because the plans have not been publicly revealed.

Historians may well mark June 13, 2025, as the day the world crossed a line it may not easily step back from. In a move that shocked the international community and sent global markets reeling, Israel launched a wide-scale military operation against Iran in the early hours of the morning, striking targets across at least 12 provinces, including the capital, Tehran, and the northwestern hub of Tabriz. Among the targets were suspected nuclear facilities, air defence systems, and the homes and offices of senior military personnel. Iranian state media confirmed the deaths of several top commanders in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The Israeli government officially confirmed responsibility for the attacks, naming the campaign Operation Raising Lion. Iranian officials described it as the most direct act of war in the countries’ decades-long shadow conflict.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to be pursuing two objectives. First, Israeli officials fear that Iran is nearing the technical capability to build a nuclear weapon – something Netanyahu has repeatedly promised to prevent, by force if necessary. Second, Israel hopes a dramatic escalation will pressure Tehran into accepting a new nuclear agreement more favourable to United States and Israeli interests, including the removal of its enriched uranium stockpiles. Just as Netanyahu has failed to destroy Hamas through military force, both goals may ultimately serve only to perpetuate a broader regional war.

While the prospect of all-out war between Iran and Israel has long loomed, Friday’s events feel dangerously different. The scale, audacity and implications of the attack – and the near-certain Iranian response – raise the spectre of a regional conflict spilling far beyond its traditional bounds.

Since the 2011 Arab Spring, a Saudi-Iranian cold war has played out across the region as each country has sought to expand its influence. That rivalry was paused through Chinese mediation in March 2023. But since October 2023, a war of attrition between Israel and Iran has unfolded through both conventional and asymmetrical means – a conflict that now threatens to define the trajectory of the Middle East for years to come.

Whether this confrontation escalates further now hinges largely on one man: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. If Iran’s supreme leader comes to view the survival of the Islamic Republic as fundamentally threatened, Tehran’s response could expand far beyond Israeli territory.

In recent months, Israeli leaders had issued repeated warnings that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities was imminent. Intelligence assessments in Tel Aviv claimed Iran was only weeks away from acquiring the necessary components to build a nuclear weapon. Although this claim was disputed by other members of the international community, it nonetheless shaped Israel’s decision to act militarily.

At the same time, indirect negotiations between Iran and the US had been under way, focused on limiting Iran’s uranium enrichment and reducing tensions through a revised nuclear agreement. US President Donald Trump publicly supported these diplomatic efforts, describing them as preferable to what he called a potentially bloody war. However, the talks faltered when Iran refused to halt enrichment on its own soil.

The US administration, while officially opposing military escalation, reportedly gave tacit approval for a limited Israeli strike. Washington is said to have believed that such a strike could shift the balance in negotiations and send a message that Iran was not negotiating from a position of strength – similar to how Trump has framed Ukraine’s position in relation to Russia. Although US officials maintain they had advance knowledge of the attacks but did not participate operationally, both the aircraft and the bunker-busting bombs used were supplied by the US, the latter during Trump’s first term.

Initial reports from Iranian sources confirm that the strikes inflicted significant damage on centrifuge halls and enrichment pipelines at its Natanz facility. However, Iranian officials insist the nuclear programme remains intact. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure includes multiple deeply buried sites – some more than 500 metres (550 yards) underground and spread across distances exceeding 1,000km (620 miles). As a result, the total destruction of the programme by air strikes alone in this initial phase appears unlikely.

Iranian officials have long warned that any direct military aggression on their territory by Israel would cross a red line, and they have promised severe retaliation. Now, with blood spilled on its soil and key targets destroyed, Khamenei faces enormous internal and external pressure to respond. The elimination of multiple high-ranking military officials in a single night has further intensified the demand for a multifaceted response.

Iran’s reply so far has taken the form of another wave of drone attacks, similar to those launched in April and October – most of which were intercepted by Israeli and Jordanian defences.

If Iran does not engage with the US at the upcoming talks in Oman on Sunday regarding a possible nuclear deal, the failure of diplomacy could mark the start of a sustained campaign. The Iranian government has stated that it does not view the Israeli operation as an isolated incident, but rather as the beginning of a longer conflict. Referring to it as a “war of attrition” – a term also used to describe Iran’s drawn-out war with Iraq in the 1980s – officials have indicated the confrontation is likely to unfold over weeks or even months.

While retaliatory missile and drone strikes on Israeli targets are likely to continue, many now anticipate that Iran could also target US military bases in the Gulf, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and even Jordan. Such an escalation would likely draw US forces directly into the conflict, implicate critical regional infrastructure and disrupt global oil supplies, particularly through the Strait of Hormuz. That, in turn, could trigger a steep rise in energy prices and send global markets spiralling – dragging in the interests of nearly every major power.

Even if an immediate, proportionate military response proves difficult, Iran is expected to act across several domains, including cyberattacks, proxy warfare and political manoeuvring. Among the political options reportedly under consideration is a full withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Iran has long used the NPT framework to assert that its nuclear programme is peaceful. Exiting the treaty would signal a significant policy shift. Additionally, there is growing speculation within Iran’s political circles that the religious decree issued by Khamenei banning the development and use of nuclear weapons may be reconsidered. If that prohibition is lifted, Iran could pursue a nuclear deterrent openly for the first time.

Whether Israel’s strikes succeeded in delaying Iran’s nuclear ambitions – or instead provoked Tehran to accelerate them – remains uncertain. What is clear is that the confrontation has entered a new phase. Should Iran exit the NPT and begin advancing its nuclear programme without the constraints of international agreements, some may argue that Israel’s campaign – intended to stop a bomb – may instead end up accelerating its creation.

Hundreds rallied in Tehran after Israeli strikes killed top generals, nuclear scientists, and civilians. The attack came amid stalled nuclear talks between Iran and world powers. Protesters chanted “Death to America” as Iran vowed severe retaliation.