Twenty questions (and expert answers) on the Israel-Iran war
By Atlantic Council experts
A decades-old conflict between Israel and Iran that was never quite “cold” is rapidly heating up. In the days since the first Israeli attacks against the Iranian nuclear program and military leadership, more than two hundred people have been killed in Iran and at least two dozen have died in Israel. The escalating war raises all sorts of questions, from military mechanics to humanitarian efforts to Washington diplomacy and the global energy supply. Below, the Atlantic Council’s authorities on the Middle East unpack this increasingly volatile moment for the region. Read on for expert responses to twenty pressing questions on this emerging war.
1. What was the Israeli calculus in launching Friday’s strikes against Iran?
Israel recognized a golden opportunity to seize Iranian weakness, following the collapse of is proxy “Axis of Resistance” led by Hezbollah along with Israel’s operational achievements of its October 2024 attack on Iran, when Israel destroyed Tehran’s strategic air defense system. The fact that the path to Iran was open to the Israeli Air Force was a significant factor in the decision to launch the attack, especially as Iran was advancing dangerously in its enrichment program. In addition, Israel recently received intelligence that Iran had resumed its “weapons group” activity in pursuit of a nuclear weapon. The combination of a country on the verge of military enrichment and an active weapons group was too dangerous in the eyes of Israel, which sought to exploit the operational window of opportunity and attack Iran as soon as it received the green light from US President Donald Trump.
—Danny Citrinowicz is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. He previously served for twenty-five years in a variety of command positions units in Israel Defense Intelligence, including as the head of the Iran branch in the Research and Analysis Division.
2. How effective has Israel been in dismantling Iran’s nuclear capabilities?
First, the Israeli operation’s objective was not defined as a complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear program. Even before its Friday attack, it was clear that Israel has a relatively limited ability to destroy nuclear capabilities without active participation from the United States. Israel can, however, significantly delay Iran’s nuclear program (by at least a year), mainly by striking facilities—starting with Natanz—assassinating nuclear scientists who represent a key bottleneck in the program, and damaging additional sites. Nevertheless, without striking the enrichment facility at Fordow, which likely would require US participation, Iran’s nuclear program cannot be destroyed, only significantly delayed.
As for Iran’s willingness to move forward with its nuclear program, the attack may, paradoxically, encourage Iran to break out toward a nuclear weapon. Nevertheless, making such a decision at this time, especially in view of the intensive Israeli Air Force activity over Iran and Israel’s deep intelligence penetration into Iran’s nuclear program, would be extremely dangerous for Iran and might even motivate Washington to directly join the campaign. Therefore, Iran may prefer to avoid a nuclear breakout—at least at this stage—and instead consider this option in the future.
—Raz Zimmt is a senior researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies and the Alliance Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University. He is also a veteran Iran watcher in the Israeli Defense Forces. Follow him on X: @RZimmt.
3. How forcefully has Tehran responded, and what has the impact been?
I think we are seeing that Iran’s bark is worse than its bite. Israel’s military and intelligence superiority over the Islamic Republic has overwhelmed and severely weakened the regime through decapitations, degradation of its armed forces, and damage to its nuclear program. Iran cannot compete with the surgical and lethal precision with which Israel is mounting its campaign. Israel’s leadership likely factored in the damage to the home front when making the decision to strike Iran so aggressively, and that speaks to the confidence the Israeli defense establishment has in its ability to manage and counter Iranian retaliation.
The one area I am most concerned about is the prospect of Tehran activating contingency operations targeting Israeli and Jewish interests abroad via terrorism. Iran may also consider targeting the energy interests of US partners in the Arab world as a means of extracting economic pain for these Israeli attacks. Tehran may likewise turn to cyberattacks against critical infrastructure. But in the end, Iran will face supply constraints, and we’re already seeing missiles being lobbed at Israel in more limited quantities, likely to preserve capacity.
—Jason M. Brodsky is the policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI). His research specialties include Iranian leadership dynamics, Iran’s military and security services, and Iran’s proxy and partner network. He is on X @JasonMBrodsky.
4. What are the the environmental and health concerns from attacks on nuclear facilities?
Attacks on nuclear facilities carry the grave threat of significant impacts on health and the environment. In its June 13 statement following Israel’s launch of strikes on Iran, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) noted that “at present, the competent Iranian authorities have confirmed that the Natanz enrichment site has been impacted and that there are no elevated radiation levels.” On June 14, the IAEA said there was also no change in offsite radiation at the Esfahan site, where four buildings, including a uranium conversion facility and a fuel plate fabrication plant, had been hit in the attacks from Israel.
—Jennifer T. Gordon is the director of the Nuclear Energy Policy Initiative and the Daniel B. Poneman chair for nuclear energy policy at the Atlantic Council’s Global Energy Center.
5. How has the IAEA responded, and are there restrictions around striking nuclear facilities under international law?
The IAEA has responded to Israel’s attacks on Iranian nuclear sites by reiterating its stance that “nuclear facilities must never be attacked regardless of the context or circumstances.” The IAEA’s General Conference has published resolutions noting that “any armed attack on and threat against nuclear facilities devoted to peaceful purposes constitutes a violation of the principles of the United Nations Charter, international law and the Statute of the Agency.” Whether Iran’s nuclear facilities were devoted solely to peaceful use is unclear, but regardless, attacks against any type of nuclear facility set a dangerous precedent and make it increasingly difficult to pull back from conflict.
—Jennifer T. Gordon
6. How aligned, or not, are Washington and Jerusalem?
Trump’s administration and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government are closely aligned on goals, but less aligned on means. They both share the goals of wanting to prevent the Islamic Republic from ever having a nuclear weapon. They share the goal of Hamas being permanently removed from power in Gaza, and for Hezbollah to have far less power in Lebanon than it does now.
On means, Trump wanted to avoid war—he wants to be a peace-through-strength president, and he has people talking in one ear about supporting Israel and the other about staying clear of Middle East wars. Netanyahu sees a narrow window to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat and does not believe that the Iranian regime will ever agree to the kind of deal Trump wants. For Netanyahu, war now was the only option.
The other important dynamic is that both Trump and Netanyahu believe they have a unique destiny to lead their nations at this hour—but both leaders face a public that is deeply divided about the wisdom of their policy choices. Both are gamblers and will double down when they are convinced they are right. It is inconceivable, therefore, that Trump would ever pressure Netanyahu to end the war short of what it will take to assure Israel’s security.
—Thomas S. Warrick is a nonresident senior fellow with the Adrienne Arsht National Security Resilience Initiative in the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security and the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative in the Middle East Programs at the Atlantic Council.
Related reading
Why Israel will resist any US-Iran nuclear deal
7. Has the conflict tanked the likelihood of achieving a US nuclear deal with Iran?
The nuclear negotiations between the United States and Iran seemed to have reached an impasse prior to the launch of Israeli strikes, with Washington insisting that Iran must give up enrichment and Tehran, including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, insisting that Iran would never give this up. The breadth of Israeli military strikes against Iran, spanning key parts of its nuclear infrastructure, senior military officials and nuclear scientists, ballistic missile stockpiles, and more recently energy infrastructure, probably are read in Iran as aimed at regime change, and make it more likely that Tehran will consider a nuclear breakout rather than a compromise in negotiations. That said, Iran may believe it can exploit Trump’s public calls for an end to the fighting and a return to the negotiating table by hinting at concessions that would get the United States to press Israel to stand down, at least temporarily. So a nuclear deal seems remote—but an Iranian negotiating ploy to try to ensure regime survival could be in the cards.
—Alan Pino is a nonresident senior fellow with the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative at the Atlantic Council’s Middle East programs and a former US national intelligence officer for the Near East.
Related reading
Beyond the bomb: Ideology as the engine of Iran’s nuclear doctrine
8. Has Washington’s force posture in the Middle East shifted since Friday, and what does this tell us about potential US involvement?
Since Thursday, the Pentagon has approved significant force posture changes for US Central Command (CENTCOM). These changes include a large deployment of KC-135/KC-46 aerial refueling tankers. Depending on the numbers of tankers involved, this could be one of the largest peacetime tanker movements in history. The USS Harry S. Truman carrier strike group’s deployment was extended in the Middle East. Also, the USS Carl Vinson carrier strike group is moving to the CENTCOM region for overlapping carrier presence. European Command has the USS Thomas Hudner (DDG-116) now repositioned in the Eastern Mediterranean to contribute air defense support to Israel.
These publicly observable movements may not be the only force posture additions in the Middle East. What these changes portend is that the United States is giving itself flexible military options. This means that Washington can contribute to Israel’s operational tempo of attacks through air-to-air refueling. The United States can also increase its ability to respond through any ground-based US Air Force fighters as well as the aircraft from two carrier strike groups. Finally, this means the United States is increasing its defensive presence to contribute to the air defense of Israel.
—Daniel E. Mouton is a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative of the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Programs. He served on the National Security Council from 2021 to 2023 as the director for defense and political-military policy for the Middle East and North Africa.
9. What does the response of Iran’s regional proxies tell us?
Iran’s regional proxies have been significantly weakened. Hamas has been decimated. Hezbollah has been badly degraded to the point where there have been public reports about its wariness of getting drawn into this conflict between Israel and Iran. Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria is gone. The Houthis retain a capability to strike Israel, but are not a strategic threat. The Iraqi Shiite militias also have resources. But the Islamic Republic’s proxy and partner network is a shell of its former self.
—Jason M. Brodsky
10. How could this impact Palestinians in Gaza?
The prevalent fear in Gaza is that an Israel-Iran war will distract from the already significantly dimmed light on the ongoing starvation and slaughter of civilians in the Palestinian enclave. There is also concern that war may lead to even more impunity and an escalation of Israeli bombardment in Gaza. Some people in Gaza that I’ve spoken with are terrified at the level of chaos the Iran strikes could bring—namely, the potential of this conflict spreading further across the region such that it will result in an even more prolonged war inside Gaza. However, some believe, or maybe hope, that this will help at least end this phase of the nightmare, although they don’t really know exactly what an “end” looks like.
—Arwa Damon is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council’s Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East and president and founder of the International Network for Aid, Relief, and Assistance (INARA).
Hamas undoubtedly imagines that an Israeli-Iranian war may strategically relieve some of the pressure on the Islamist group in the Gaza Strip, as the Israeli military reallocates intelligence and kinetic strike capabilities to the new theater.
Still, Israel will likely maintain a steady tempo of bombardment and ground operations against suspected Hamas targets in Gaza, as it has since the initiation of hostilities with Tehran. The new war is unlikely to prove beneficial to Hamas in any tactical or geostrategic way. In fact, in the medium term, Hamas’s regional posture will be further degraded by the weakening of its chief backer and supporter in Tehran.
Many Palestinians in Gaza have been subtly or even openly gloating about Iran’s woes, holding Tehran directly responsible for the destruction of their lives through Hamas and the network of anti-Israel terror organizations that served it. Though it may have limited tactical impact in the near term, the weakening or possible collapse of the Iranian regime will be a positive development for the prospects of Gaza’s rejuvenation and regeneration after the war, as well as peace between Palestinians and Israelis.
—Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib leads Realign For Palestine, an Atlantic Council project that challenges entrenched narratives in the Israel and Palestine discourse.
11. Could this war benefit or harm Russia, and how is Moscow navigating both sides?
Russia could potentially benefit from the Israel-Iran conflict, by US attention and support being redirected from Ukraine to Israel, and by the rise in oil prices which provide Moscow with greater resources to fund its war against Ukraine. If the Israel-Iran conflict ends quickly, though, these benefits may not last long. The recent phone call between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin, in which both called for an end to the Israel-Iran conflict, also furthers Putin’s aim of increasing Russian cooperation with Washington despite the war in Ukraine continuing.
But, as some Russian commentators have noted, the Israel-Iran conflict also involves the risk of regime collapse in Iran. Like in Syria, this would mean the downfall of a longstanding government that had cooperated closely with Moscow, and Russia having to compete with others for influence with the new authorities emerging in Iran afterward, whatever they might be. With Russia preoccupied by its war against Ukraine, however, Putin would not be in a strong position to do this.
Thus, while the Israel-Iran conflict provides some benefits to Russia, it also poses serious risks for it as well. Putin’s calls to end the Israel-Iran conflict through diplomatic means, then, undoubtedly reflect what he really wants to see happen. Yet even if the conflict does end through (as Putin wants) joint Russian-American mediation efforts, it could result in Iran being more cooperative with the United States than it has been in the past.
—Mark N. Katz is a nonresident senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, and a professor emeritus of government and politics at the George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government.
Related reading
Inflection Points TodayJan 18, 2025
A Russian-Iranian inaugural gift for Trump
12. Could this war benefit or harm China, and how is Beijing navigating both sides?
China condemned Israel’s attack and has called on both sides to de-escalate. Nevertheless, Beijing almost certainly sees an opportunity to promote itself as a responsible actor, and even a potential mediator, in the crisis. A wider, regional conflict would raise China’s risk-to-benefit calculus as it would threaten its regional economic, namely energy, interests. As such, China would welcome Washington reining in Israel and resuming talks with Iran. China will also be quick to amplify US failings, real or not, if the situation deteriorates as part of its broader campaign to undermine the United States’ global position and influence.
—Gabriel “Gabo” Alvarado is a former nonresident senior fellow in the Atlantic Council’s Global China Hub. He currently works at Nisos.
13. What weapons have Israel and Iran deployed so far?
From June 13-16, Israel flew F-35I, F-15I, and F-16 aircraft to conduct hundreds of airstrikes using GBU-28 bunker busters, Rampage missiles, and precision munitions against Iranian nuclear facilities, military leadership, and critical infrastructure. Iran retaliated with hundreds of ballistic missiles from its arsenal. Iran‘s attacks include Fattah hypersonic missiles, Khorramshahr ballistic missiles, and other missiles and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) to target Israel in “Operation Severe Punishment.”
—Daniel E. Mouton
14. What are the nuclear counter-proliferation implications of the conflict?
The counter-proliferation implications of this conflict are noteworthy. The IAEA on June 12 declared Iran non-compliant with Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) obligations for the first time in twenty years. Iran responded by announcing a third uranium enrichment site and threatening NPT withdrawal. While Israel may have destroyed Natanz’s above-ground enrichment plant, the crisis runs the risk of paradoxically accelerating proliferation risks. If this conflict does not fully eliminate the current and future threat of Iranian proliferation, Iran’s irreversible knowledge of the enrichment cycle means that it can simply rebuild and do so with a greater desire to succeed next time.
—Daniel E. Mouton
15. What Iranian oil and gas facilities has Israel targeted, and does this have an impact on the wider fallout?
Israel appears to have successfully hit two natural gas processing facilities in Phase Fourteen of the South Pars gas field, forcing Iran to suspend operations there. Iran’s natural gas production is consumed domestically due to significant sanctions on exporting natural gas. Israeli strikes also hit a major fuel depot and an oil refinery near Tehran. These are significant hits because Iran’s energy situation was already precarious, with parts of the country experiencing planned blackouts due to electricity shortages. Without consistent access to fuel, Iranians living in Tehran cannot evacuate. If Israel takes out additional domestic energy sites around Iran, the potential for the country to simply fall apart is very high. Without fuel, food cannot be transported to cities. Without electricity and running water, illness will proliferate and people will die.
At least 23 wounded by Iranian missile in Haifa; woman dies of heart attack in Karmiel
Three in Haifa, including a teenager, seriously injured; footage indicates Iran shot cluster bomb at Beersheba, daycare hit but no injuries reported from impacts in center, south
Footage shows the impact scenes and aftermath of a ballistic missile barrage fired from Iran, in Beersheba, southern Israel, and the northern port city of Haifa, June 20, 2025. (X; used in accordance with Clause 27a of the Copyright Law); an ambulance carrying people injured in the attack arrives at a hospital in Haifa (Rambam Health Care Campus)
Iran fired a barrage of ballistic missiles at Israel on Friday afternoon, setting off alarms across the country and sending some 10 million people running to bomb shelters. One woman had a heart attack and died in a shelter in the northern city of Karmiel, while a missile impacted in Haifa, wounding at least 23 people, three of them seriously.
The three seriously wounded in Haifa included a 16-year-old boy who sustained shrapnel wounds to his upper body, and two men, aged 54 and 40, who sustained wounds to their lower bodies, according to the Magen David Adom ambulance service.
The other 20 wounded sustained light injuries, MDA said, adding that all the wounded were taken to hospitals.
The woman who died in Karmiel was identified as Yelena Sadowski, 51. Sadowski collapsed while running to the shelter amid the missile sirens. Medics who arrived at the scene were forced to declare her dead.
Haifa mayor Yona Yahav told reporters at the scene that the barrage hit “two strategic areas” in the city, without elaborating.
Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar said the missile barrage hit the Al-Jarina Mosque in Haifa’s Wadi Nisnas neighborhood.
“The missile attack injured Muslim clerics who were in the mosque,” wrote Sa’ar, adding footage from the scene. “The Iranian regime is targeting Muslim, Christian and Jewish civilians, as well as civilian sites. These are war crimes.”
The Israel Defense Forces estimated that the attack included some 25 missiles.
Shockwaves from the missile knocked out stained glass windows and caused infrastructure damage at the Al Jarina Grand Mosque, built in 1775 and extended in 1901.
The low, thick-walled stone building near Haifa’s port usually attracts up to 200 people for Friday prayers, but just 15 turned up because of a Home Front prohibition on large gatherings, according to Wakf representative Khalid Dagash.
He said prayers had ended by the time the missile fell and nobody was left in the building.
One person whose identity he didn’t know was lightly injured outside, he said.
The building was undergoing renovation, said Dagash, adding that he feared government compensation would not be enough to repair the damage.
Windows were also blown out at the even older Masjid Al-Saghir, built in 1761. No other damage was visible from the cordon outside.
Cluster bomb on a daycare center
Footage from Beersheba showed Iran likely targeted the city with a cluster bomb.
Videos and photos showed several impacts of small munitions at multiple locations in the southern city, indicating that a ballistic missile carrying a cluster bomb warhead was used in the attack.
One of the small munitions hit a daycare. Two homes in Beersheba also sustained damage, but no one was hurt, police and medics said.
One of the impacts caused significant damage to the Colel Chabad Daycare Center in Beersheba, the organization said.
“Miraculously, no children or staff were physically harmed, as the strike occurred Friday afternoon outside the center’s regular operating time. However, the destruction of classrooms and play areas has deeply impacted dozens of local families who rely on the center for stability, safety and childcare,” Colel Chabad said.
Israel’s fire service said it was putting out a fire that broke out at an impact site in Beersheba.
The apparent targeting of Beersheba with a cluster bomb came after the IDF Home Front Command on Thursday confirmed that Iran had launched at least one ballistic missile carrying a cluster bomb warhead at central Israel.
According to the military, the missile’s warhead opened up while descending, at an altitude of around 7 kilometers (4.3 miles), spreading about 20 smaller munitions with roughly 2.5 kilograms (5.5 pounds) of explosives, in a radius of some 8 kilometers (5 miles). Neither Israel nor Iran is a signatory to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, which bans the weapons.
Missile fragments were also reported in central Israel. No injuries were caused.
New shelters
The Israeli government on Friday approved a Defense Ministry and Home Front Command plan to renovate 500 public bomb shelters and deploy 1,000 mobile roadside shelters across the country, with an estimated cost of 100 million NIS.
“In light of the security situation, the government approved via a phone vote a plan to accelerate home front defense,” the Defense Ministry said.
The ministry said the 500 public shelters that will be refurbished are mostly in central Israel, which has been repeatedly targeted by Iran in the past week.
The 1,000 roadside shelters will be placed “in sensitive areas nationwide,” it added.
Despite the holdup, several locales in the Gush Dan area have already received portable shelters from the Home Front Command, including Bnei Brak and Ramat Hasharon.
Iran has launched over 470 ballistic missiles and around 1,000 drones at Israel since the IDF commenced operations against the Islamic Republic last Friday.
So far, Iran’s missile attacks have killed 24 people and wounded thousands in Israel, according to health officials and hospitals. Some of the missiles have hit apartment buildings, a university and a hospital, causing heavy damage.
Israel says its sweeping assault on Iran’s top military leaders, nuclear scientists, uranium enrichment sites and ballistic missile program is necessary to prevent the Islamic Republic from realizing its avowed plan to destroy the Jewish state.
