Since Israel began attacking Iran, it has not stopped attacking Gaza. In recent days, hundreds of Palestinians have been killed, including dozens who were fleeing with their loved ones who had been bombed in displacement camps.
Conflict in the Middle East raises global concerns about nuclear risk.
Israel claims that its main objectives are to stop Iran’s nuclear program.
Israel has never admitted to having nuclear weapons, despite being widely believed to do so.
What are the risks from this conflict, and what are both sides’ nuclear arsenals?
Presenter: Laura Kyle
Guests:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Director Dan Smith
Sahil Shah, a policy analyst for nuclear weapons, is based in London.
Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez urged the alliance to adopt a more flexible framework in a letter he sent to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on Thursday, according to media reports.
The letter requested either a completely exempted or optional target or that Spain be left alone, according to the Reuters and Associated Press news agencies.
A 5% target would be “unfair and counterproductive,” Sanchez wrote, warning that it would undermine efforts by the European Union to establish its own security and defense base. We make the decision to not participate as a sovereign Ally.
Sanchez reaffirmed that Madrid had no desire to halt the upcoming summit’s progress. However, all 32 NATO members must vote in favor of an increase in defense spending, giving Spain the ability to stall or stall the deal.
According to estimates from the alliance, Spain currently spends about 1.28 percent of its GDP on defense. This is its lowest percentage among NATO members. Sanchez has pledged to expedite the nation’s progress toward NATO’s current 2 percent goal, but he contends that going beyond that could harm the welfare state and put infringe on Spain’s overall policy outlook.
Donald Trump, the president of the United States, and others have urged NATO to spread the burden more evenly across the alliance, so the alliance is now pressing for higher spending. Rutte has proposed a new formula that allocates core military spending to 3.5% of GDP and to broader security needs, as suggested by Rutte.
Since Russia’s invasion of 2022, the United States has reportedly contributed 3.38 percent of its GDP to defense in 2024, making it NATO’s largest military contributor and Ukraine’s main supporter. Trump has threatened to withhold support for those who don’t, saying repeatedly that European allies aren’t pulling their weight.
However, Sanchez claimed that rushing to achieve a 5-percent target would make EU states purchase military equipment from outside the bloc, putting strain on the continent’s efforts to increase self-sufficiency in defense.
The political left in Spain also opposes the proposal. The move is opposed by Sanchez’s coalition’s left-leaning Sumar party, while Podemos, who isn’t in government but frequently a key parliamentary ally, also opposes it.
According to Josa Miguel Calvillo, a professor of international relations at the Complutense University of Madrid, “the government will have a very difficult time in the current situation,” according to a Reuters interview.
Italy has also voiced concerns, reportedly seeking to change the new target’s proposed deadline from 2032 to 2035 and to eliminate the requirement to increase spending by 0.2% annually.
Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, stated to reporters on Thursday that she would make a decision on whether or not to engage in negotiations with Iran in the near future. She remarked that President Trump has quoted that phrase directly.
The president is a peacemaker in chief, and he is always interested in finding a diplomatic solution. He is the president of peace through force. The president will always take advantage of any chance for diplomacy, which is why. He doesn’t fear using force either, the press secretary continued.
The initial Israeli strike on Iran on June 13 was characterized as “unilateral action” by the US. Trump has, however, indicated that he was aware of the attack and supported Israel’s military strategy.
Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, has spoken to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi several times on the phone since Israel began its attacks, according to the Reuters news agency, which cited three unnamed diplomats.
Tel Aviv and Tehran have also continued to exchange bombs.
Israel attacked Iran’s Arak heavy water nuclear reactor on Thursday. In response, Iran struck the Soroka Medical Center, which it claimed was close to an Israeli military and intelligence base.
Trump has made hints in the past few days about joining Israel’s nuclear attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites while simultaneously proposing a quick diplomatic response in a contentious Washington message.
The president took to his Truth Social social media account to deny the report, which the Wall Street Journal reported on Wednesday night. He had already agreed to strike Iran but had not yet decided when.
The Wall Street Journal is “No Idea” about Iran, according to the Wall Street Journal! Trump authored .
However, Marwan Bishara, a senior political analyst for Al Jazeera, claimed that Trump might be using Leavitt’s comments as a “pretext” to conceal his intentions and attack tomorrow.
Trump may be waiting to hear the outcome of the talks before launching an attack as Araghchi is scheduled to meet with his British, French, and German counterparts in Geneva on Friday, along with Kaja Kallas, the top diplomat of the European Union, to discuss Tehran’s nuclear program.
He’s giving the Europeans some time, Bishara said, “If one needs to overinterpret, I would say that.”
Washington, DC – Over the past week, United States President Donald Trump has been issuing statements on Iran that appear to be contradictory.
He has called for ending the war and hinted at peace coming “soon”, only to then suggest that assassinating Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could be an option for the US along with joining Israel’s bombing campaign.
In the latest turn, the White House said on Thursday that Trump will make a decision on whether to join the war within two weeks.
These changes in the president’s stance have some observers thinking that Trump may not have a clear strategy or endgame; rather he is being dragged to war by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has been seeking US attacks on Iran for decades.
Alternatively, could Trump be using his increasingly bellicose rhetoric against Iran to compel Tehran to agree to entirely give up its nuclear programme?
If so, experts warn that brinkmanship could turn into an all-out war between the US and Iran.
Jamal Abdi, president of the National Iranian American Council, said Trump could be attempting to build leverage with threats to strongarm Iran into accepting his demands of “total surrender”.
“I think he’s trying to present himself as this madman who is unpredictable, and in so doing, he can then insist on this very hard line that Iran has refused to accept for decades of full dismantlement of its enrichment programme,” Abdi told Al Jazeera.
Another possible explanation of Trump’s latest statements, Abdi added, is that he is “being taken for a ride by Bibi Netanyahu to commit the United States to a full-on war with Iran”.
Iranian American analyst Negar Mortazavi also said that Trump is being “outmaneuvered” by Netanyahu.
“I don’t even know if President Trump knows what he wants,” Mortazavi told Al Jazeera.
“He campaigned as the president of peace … he promised he’s going to end conflicts. Russia-Ukraine hasn’t ended. Gaza has escalated, and he just let the third big Middle East war – which looks like a regime-change war – start under his watch. So, he says one thing he does another.”
Israel launched its bombing campaign against Iran last week, two days before US and Iranian officials were set to meet for a sixth round of talks in Oman.
Hours before the Israeli assault began, Trump renewed his commitment to diplomacy. And the initial US response to the Israeli strikes was to stress that Washington is not involved in the attacks.
In subsequent days, however, Trump appeared to take credit for the Israeli bombing campaign.
“We now have complete and total control of the skies over Iran,” he wrote in a social media post on Tuesday, without elaborating on who the “we” was.
“Iran had good sky trackers and other defensive equipment, and plenty of it, but it doesn’t compare to American made, conceived, and manufactured ‘stuff.’ Nobody does it better than the good ol’ USA.”
Israel’s strikes have targeted Iran’s air defences, military and nuclear facilities, oil infrastructure and residential buildings, killing hundreds of people, including top military and political officials as well as many civilians. Iran has responded with hundreds of ballistic missiles that have killed at least 24 Israelis and left widespread destruction across the country.
Israeli officials claim they are trying to destroy Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes, but also note that their military campaign could lead to the collapse of the Iranian governing system, which they say would be a welcome development.
However, it is widely believed that Israel would need US help to destroy Iran’s main uranium enrichment facility, Fordow, which is buried inside a mountain.
Mortazavi said war hawks and Israeli officials appear to be making the case to Trump that bombing Fordow will be an easy task.
“Instead of a regime change war – a devastating, unnecessary war with Iran, which he has been warning everyone and running against in his campaigns, they’re just making this look like, ‘Oh, you just use your bunker busters once and done.’”
But Iran has promised to retaliate harshly against any US attack.
Thousands of US troops in the region could come under Iranian missile strikes. If the war escalates, Iran could also disrupt shipping lanes in the Gulf – a major lifeline for global energy.
Iranian lawmakers have already suggested that Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz that connects the Gulf to the Indian Ocean and through which 20 percent of the world’s oil flows.
Mortazavi said escalating the conflict will have “catastrophic” consequences for the region.
“It will look like Iraq and Afghanistan combined, if not worse. Iran is a big country,” she said.
In Iraq, Bush’s regime-change war led to years of sectarian bloodshed and the rise of groups like ISIL (ISIS). In Afghanistan, US forces fought for 20 years after deposing the Taliban from the capital Kabul, only to see the group swiftly return to power as US troops withdrew.
Even if Iran’s governing system is toppled under US and Israeli blows, experts warn that US war hawks should be careful what they wish for.
Iran is a country of more than 90 million people. The fall of the government could lead to internal conflict, displacement crises and regional – if not global – instability, analysts say.
“This is not a colour revolution. This is going to be war and chaos, potentially civil war, and unrest,” Mortazavi said.
Sarah Leah Whitson, executive director of the rights group DAWN, said that even if Trump is trying to gain leverage with his threats and is not seeking war or regime change in Iran, it’s a risky strategy.
“The possibilities of the assaults on Iran escalating into not just a broader regional war, but potentially a global war, are extremely high,” Whitson told Al Jazeera.
According to analysts, Iran does not have any clear off-roads to end its conflict with Israel, which could soon drag on in the United States and cause a new Middle East quagmire.
At least 240 Iranians have been killed by Israel since June 13; the majority of them civilians. The dead included prominent Iranian military figures and nuclear scientists.
Israel has struck Iran’s state television station, struck a hospital, targeted apartment complexes, and destroyed its air defenses.
Iran has responded by firing barrages of ballistic missiles at Israel, hitting residential structures, hospitals, and military installations. In Israel, the attacks have claimed the lives of at least 24 people.
According to analysts, Israel wants to end Iran’s nuclear program and possibly start a regime change.
Iran struggles to put an end to the conflict quickly because of these objectives. Iran’s official position is that it will not enter into any negotiations with the US and Israel because it fears being forced to renounce its position while it is under attack.
Iran may instead have to appoint US President Donald Trump to control Israel, which may be in his best interests to avoid starting a foreign war, even though the US leader has recently indicated his intention to attack Iran and has repeatedly stated that it is against Iranians’ wishes to avoid having a nuclear weapon.
Given the rising costs of war for Iran and the fact that Iran’s top priority is to stop, not to expand, the conflict, according to Hamidreza Aziz, an expert on Iran for the Middle East Council for Global Affairs think tank. “If the United States recognizes the urgency of de-escalation and manages to persuade Israel to stop its military campaign, then it is highly likely that Iran would consent to a ceasefire or political resolution,” said Aziz.
Iran could return to the table of negotiations and reach a compromise in the event of an uprising.
However, according to analysts, Iran would be forced to abandon its nuclear program completely, which would allow its adversaries to launch a regime change without fear of consequences.
According to Reza H. Akbari, a program manager for the Institute for War and Peace Reporting’s analysis of Iran and the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia, this is unlikely.
Iran’s nuclear program is still a powerful tool for Iran, which makes it even more powerful to negotiate with the US. He told Al Jazeera, “Giving it up would be a shocking development that I don’t foresee for the time being.”
Before Israel started the conflict, the US and Iran had already engaged in five rounds of negotiations.
Every nation has an “inalienable right” to use its nuclear arsenal for peaceful purposes, according to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, which Iran is a signatory to. Trump demanded that Iran give up its entire nuclear program.
Trump has since suggested a regime change by warning Iran to give in to a deal or face even worse consequences.
According to Negar Mortazavi, an Iran-focused expert with the Center for International Policy (CIP), Iran has few viable options.
She notes that Tehran might not necessarily have a chance of winning the conflict if Iran repudiates Israel, but that the strategy would also need to be used.
Iranian officials believe that the Israeli attacks will get harder and I believe they are accurate, Mortazavi told Al Jazeera. However, when Iran retaliates, it gives Israel an excuse to attack them once more.
Iran’s regional influence has suffered significant setbacks over the past year, making it increasingly vulnerable politically.
Iran’s long-standing ally, the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, had long relied on it to prevent direct Israeli attacks, but Hezbollah suffered significant deterioration after waging a bloodbath against Israel last year.
Iran also lost a close ally to Syria’s former leader Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.
According to Barbara Slavin, an expert on Iran and distinguished fellow at the Stimson Centre think tank, Iran could still launch attacks against US bases and personnel through a web of Iranian-backed armed groups in the region, particularly in Iraq.
She thinks Iranian-backed organizations in Iraq might launch “warning shots” to try to sway the US public.
Trump’s nationalist “America First” base is vehemently opposed to any US involvement in international conflicts because they don’t share their domestic concerns.
And if US troops are put in harm’s way by any attacks connected to the Iran-Iran conflict, anti-interventionist sentiments are likely to rise.
According to Slavin, “the idea of Americans dying in this would make it even more contentious for [the US] than it already is.”
Iran might cause the American people’s economic suffering as a result. It has threatened to attack commercial ships in the Strait of Hormuz, which would have an impact on international trade and raise oil prices. However, Slavin claimed that this action would also have a significant impact on Iran’s economy.
Slavin added that Iran also relies on commercial shipping to export oil from the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s busiest shipping corridors, between Iran and Oman. Slavin argued that any maneuver to escalate against US personnel, even as a warning, is a risky gambit and that Iran’s best course of action was to contain the conflict with Israel and postpone the conflict.
Iran has been specifically warned against attacking its assets or soldiers by Trump’s administration, which includes many war hawks.
According to Akbari, Iran is also cautious about using Iran as a pretext to directly invade Israel on the grounds that it won’t allow it to.
The US leadership is aware that in terms of industrial damage and for the regime, dragging the country further into the conflict. It runs the risk of destroying everything Iran has built in the past 40 or so years,” Akbari said.
Israel is legally responsible for funding the war, but Iran’s official position is that it will pay a lot of money for it.
Hassan Ahmadian, an assistant professor at Tehran University, concurred with him when he suggested that Israelis might call on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end the conflict if they experience the effects of a crisis he initiated.
Ahmadian told Al Jazeera, “Iranians are quite confident that they can inflict enough retaliatory pain to get Israel to stop]its attacks.”
Given that Israel’s military infrastructure is barred from the media from reporting such information, it is unclear how much harm Iran is doing to it.
Additionally, it’s difficult to predict how long Iran will be able to wage an Israeli war.
Without the US, Israel may find it difficult to launch an offensive, according to Slavin.
She made reference to media reports that Israel is lacking defensive interceptors, which could make Iran’s long-range strikes more prone to.
The difficulties facing both adversaries could cause them to end fighting sooner rather than later, at least that is what Iran appears to be betting on.
Iran is currently attempting to “hunker down and somehow get through this,” Slavin said.