Israel-Iran Military Confrontation: Netanyahu’s Endgame and the Nuclear Stakes.
In June 2025, the Middle East stands at a precarious juncture as Israel and Iran engage in an escalating military confrontation, marked by unprecedented Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, military targets, and key personnel. On June 13, 2025, Israel launched “Operation Rising Lion,” targeting Iran’s nuclear sites at Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow, as well as military bases and missile infrastructure, killing senior commanders and nuclear scientists. Iran retaliated with missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities, resulting in civilian casualties on both sides. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s rhetoric, including a direct appeal to the Iranian people to rise against their “evil and oppressive regime,” has sparked intense debate about Israel’s ultimate objectives. Is the goal to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, derail U.S.-Iran nuclear talks, or pursue a broader aim of regime change? This comprehensive analysis explores Israel’s strategy, the role of U.S. President Donald Trump, the nuclear program’s status, and the implications of this volatile conflict, drawing on expert insights and recent developments.
The Escalation: Operation Rising Lion and Iran’s Response
On June 13, 2025, Israel initiated a series of preemptive strikes, dubbed “Operation Rising Lion,” targeting Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and military assets. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) described the operation as a “precise and integrated preemptive strike” to counter an “existential threat” posed by Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The strikes hit Natanz, destroying its aboveground enrichment plant, damaged four critical buildings at Isfahan, and targeted Fordow, Iran’s heavily fortified underground facility. Additionally, Israel assassinated at least nine nuclear scientists and senior military figures, including Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander Hossein Salami and Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of Iran’s military. The Iranian Fars news agency reported over 70 deaths and 320 injuries, while a Washington-based human rights group cited 406 deaths and 654 injuries in Iran. Israel reported 14 deaths and 390 injuries from Iranian retaliatory strikes.
Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on Israeli cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa, killing at least 13 people, including three children, according to Netanyahu’s office. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei condemned the attacks, vowing a “crushing response” and warning that Israel had “sealed a bitter and painful destiny.” Iranian state media reported no damage to Fordow’s underground enrichment plant or the Khondab heavy water reactor, and the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran claimed radioactive contamination at Natanz was contained. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), led by Director-General Rafael Grossi, confirmed the strikes on Natanz and reported normal radiation levels outside the targeted sites, while emphasizing that nuclear facilities should never be attacked.
Netanyahu framed the operation as a fight for Israel’s survival, stating on June 14, 2025, “We have paved a path to Tehran. In the very near future, you will see Israeli planes, our pilots, over the skies of Tehran.” He also addressed Iranians directly, urging them to seize a “historic window” to overthrow their regime, which he described as weakened by Israel’s strikes. Posts on X from Netanyahu’s account reinforced this narrative, emphasizing Israel’s focus on military and nuclear targets, not civilians, and framing the conflict as a defense of freedom against a “tyrannical” regime.
Netanyahu’s Stated Goal: Crippling Iran’s Nuclear Program
Netanyahu has consistently portrayed Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat, claiming in June 2025 that Iran is in the “90th minute” of developing a nuclear bomb. This rhetoric echoes his decades-long campaign against Iran, exemplified by his 2012 UN presentation of a cartoon bomb to illustrate Iran’s nuclear progress. Israel’s strikes targeted key facilities—Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow—aiming to disrupt Iran’s ability to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. The IAEA’s latest report indicates Iran has enough uranium enriched to 60% purity to potentially produce nine nuclear bombs, though it would require months to a year to develop a deliverable warhead. Despite Iran’s insistence that its program is for civilian purposes, Western and Israeli officials argue its advanced centrifuges and enriched uranium stockpiles pose a significant risk.
Dr. Sanam Vakil of Chatham House notes that Israel’s military establishment is focused on “profoundly setting back Iran’s nuclear program,” a goal she deems “somewhat achievable” compared to regime change. The strikes have caused significant damage, particularly at Natanz, but Fordow’s underground fortifications pose a challenge. Israel lacks the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs needed to destroy such facilities, which are held by the U.S. Air Force. Richard Nephew, a former U.S. official, suggests Netanyahu may seek U.S. assistance to target Fordow, arguing that Israel has cleared other threats to enable U.S. B-2 bombers to operate safely. However, the IAEA and Iranian officials report limited damage to Fordow, indicating that a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program remains elusive.
The Regime Change Question
Netanyahu’s direct appeal to Iranians to “stand up” against their regime and his statement on Fox News that regime change “could certainly be the result” of the conflict have fueled speculation about a broader endgame. His rhetoric, described by The Economist’s Anshel Pfeffer as a “Churchillian mood,” contrasts with Israel’s official stance, articulated by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, that regime change is not a primary objective. Israeli intelligence, according to Pfeffer, views engineering Iran’s regime collapse as unpredictable, potentially occurring soon or decades from now. Dr. Vakil argues that regime change is a personal priority for Netanyahu but less feasible in the short term compared to nuclear setbacks.
Vali Nasr, a Middle East scholar, contends that Iran perceives Israel’s actions as an attempt to “downgrade Iran’s capabilities as a state” and shift the regional balance of power, possibly aiming to topple the Islamic Republic. However, he doubts Iranians will view Israel’s attacks as “liberation,” especially as civilian infrastructure, including apartment buildings and energy facilities, is increasingly targeted. Iran’s history of protests—sparked by economic hardship, corruption, and social restrictions—has not translated into widespread support for external intervention. The 2002 protests demanding greater freedoms were met with crackdowns, and current civilian casualties may rally nationalistic sentiment against Israel.
Reports surfaced on June 16, 2025, that Trump vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Khamenei, citing concerns about regional destabilization and escalation. Israeli officials, including National Security Council Chief Tzachi Hanegbi, emphasized a focus on military and nuclear targets, not political leadership, though Hanegbi’s caveat that this focus is “valid for a limited time” suggests flexibility in Israel’s strategy.
Derailing U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks
The timing of Israel’s strikes, launched on the 61st day of Trump’s 60-day ultimatum for Iran to reach a nuclear deal, has raised suspicions that Netanyahu aimed to sabotage negotiations. Trump, who withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018, initiated new talks in 2025, mediated by Oman, to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. The U.S. demanded zero enrichment, a condition Iran rejected as a “red line.” Iranian negotiators, led by Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, suspected the talks were a ploy to delay Iran’s defenses against an imminent Israeli attack. Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations argues that the strikes were “designed to kill President Trump’s chances of striking a deal,” though some Israeli officials claim the attacks strengthened U.S. leverage.
Trump’s stance has been inconsistent. Initially, he urged Israel to avoid strikes to protect negotiations, but after the attacks, he praised them as “excellent” while expressing hope for a deal. On June 16, 2025, he posted on Truth Social, “We will have PEACE, soon, between Israel and Iran!” despite the cancellation of scheduled talks in Muscat. The Oman channel is reportedly “dead for the time being,” but regional efforts continue to seek de-escalation. Trump’s veto of the Khamenei assassination plan reflects his preference for diplomacy to avoid a broader war, though he warned Iran of severe consequences if it targets U.S. assets.
International Condemnation and Legal Concerns
The Israeli strikes have drawn widespread criticism. The IAEA’s Rafael Grossi condemned attacks on nuclear facilities as unacceptable, emphasizing the risk of radioactive leaks and long-term contamination. Legal scholars argue the strikes violate international law, citing the prohibition on targeting civilian infrastructure and nuclear sites. Regional states, including Qatar and Oman, expressed concern over escalation, while Western allies like France and Britain urged restraint. U.S. Senator Chris Murphy criticized Israel’s actions as an attempt to scuttle Trump’s negotiations, calling it a “disaster” of Netanyahu’s making. Conversely, Senators Tom Cotton and John Fetterman supported Israel, with Cotton advocating for the elimination of Iranian leadership and nuclear personnel.
Trump’s Role and U.S. Involvement
Trump’s second term has seen a delicate balancing act. His administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff, has prioritized a nuclear deal to ease Middle East tensions and shift focus to other global issues, such as the Ukraine-Russia conflict. However, Netanyahu’s actions have strained U.S.-Israel relations. Trump’s rejection of the Khamenei assassination plan and his public statements distancing the U.S. from Israel’s strikes underscore his desire to avoid entanglement in a protracted war. Yet, his comments about potential U.S. military involvement and his provision of weaponry to Israel suggest a complex stance.
Netanyahu’s reliance on U.S. support, particularly for bunker-busting bombs to target Fordow, remains a critical factor. U.S. intelligence assessments indicate that even successful strikes would only delay Iran’s nuclear program by months, potentially prompting Tehran to accelerate weaponization. Dennis Ross, a former U.S. negotiator, argues that any deal must permanently dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure to eliminate the threat, a view shared by Netanyahu but at odds with Iran’s insistence on maintaining a civilian program.
The Broader Context: Regional and Domestic Dynamics
Iran’s weakened position—exacerbated by sanctions, economic turmoil, and the decimation of its proxy Hezbollah’s missile arsenal—has created a “historic window” for Israel, as noted by a Middle Eastern official. However, Iran’s retaliatory capabilities, including missiles and drones, pose a significant threat to Israel, as evidenced by strikes on Tel Aviv and Haifa. The conflict’s expansion to economic targets, such as oil depots, risks further destabilizing Iran’s economy, which could fuel domestic unrest but also harden nationalistic resolve.
In Israel, Netanyahu faces domestic pressure to act decisively against Iran, bolstered by near-unanimous political support, as seen in opposition leader Yair Lapid’s endorsement of the strikes. His “Churchillian” rhetoric aligns with his long-standing narrative of Iran as the region’s primary threat, a stance that resonates with Israel’s security establishment but diverges from Trump’s diplomatic push.
What Is Israel’s Endgame?
Israel’s objectives appear multifaceted, with overlapping but distinct goals:
- Crippling Iran’s Nuclear Program: The primary aim, as articulated by Israeli officials, is to destroy or severely impair Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, particularly at Natanz and Fordow. While significant damage has been inflicted, the fortified nature of Fordow and Iran’s advanced centrifuges limit the long-term impact without U.S. support.
- Disrupting U.S.-Iran Negotiations: The timing of the strikes suggests an intent to derail Trump’s nuclear talks, which Netanyahu views skeptically, fearing they may allow Iran to retain enrichment capabilities. This aligns with his historical opposition to the 2015 JCPOA.
- Regime Change Ambitions: Netanyahu’s appeals to Iranians and comments about the regime’s weakness hint at a personal goal of fostering regime change, though this is less supported by Israel’s military and intelligence communities. The psychological warfare, including assassinations and infrastructure attacks, may aim to destabilize the regime, but experts like Nasr argue it is unlikely to galvanize Iranians against their government.
Daniel Levy of the U.S. Middle East Project emphasizes that the conflict’s outcome hinges on U.S. involvement, stating, “Success or failure is overwhelmingly defined by whether the U.S. can be dragged in.” Without U.S. military support, Israel’s ability to achieve a decisive blow against Iran’s nuclear program or regime is limited, making Trump’s decisions pivotal.
Implications and Future Prospects
The Israel-Iran confrontation risks a broader regional war, with civilian casualties mounting and economic infrastructure under threat. The IAEA’s warnings about radioactive risks underscore the global stakes, while legal and diplomatic condemnation highlights the conflict’s illegitimacy under international law. Trump’s diplomatic overtures, now stalled, face an uphill battle, as Iran’s negotiators distrust U.S. intentions and demand guarantees against future withdrawals, as seen in 2018.
For Israel, the strikes have bolstered Netanyahu’s domestic standing but strained relations with the U.S. and regional allies. Iran’s resilience, despite losses, suggests a prolonged conflict unless de-escalation channels, such as those mediated by Oman or Qatar, are revived. The conflict’s trajectory depends on whether Trump aligns with Netanyahu’s aggressive stance or prioritizes diplomacy to avert a wider war.
In Iran, the regime faces internal pressures but may rally public support against external aggression. The assassination of key figures and attacks on civilian infrastructure could either weaken the regime’s grip or strengthen its resolve, complicating Netanyahu’s regime change aspirations. The coming weeks will be critical, as Israel’s ability to sustain its campaign and Iran’s retaliatory capacity shape the conflict’s scope.
Israel’s endgame under Netanyahu appears to blend tactical objectives—disrupting Iran’s nuclear program and negotiations—with a personal vision of regime change. While the strikes have inflicted significant damage, the fortified Fordow facility and Iran’s retaliatory strikes highlight the challenges of achieving a decisive victory. Trump’s veto of the Khamenei assassination plan and his push for diplomacy reflect a U.S. desire to avoid escalation, but his inconsistent messaging leaves room for uncertainty. As civilian tolls rise and global condemnation grows, the conflict’s resolution hinges on U.S. policy, Israel’s military capacity, and Iran’s domestic dynamics. The path forward remains fraught, with the risk of a broader war looming unless diplomatic off-ramps are found.
Disclaimer: This analysis is based on publicly available information and is intended solely for informational purposes. It reflects reported events and expert opinions but does not endorse any narrative or predict outcomes with certainty.
Source: News reports, expert analyses, and official statements, June 2025.
