Photo: Vahid Salemi/AP
The attack had been predicted for weeks, but over the last few days, the chatter was taken seriously enough that the U.S. ordered non-essential diplomatic personnel to evacuate the region. By the time the Israeli military finally struck Iran on Thursday evening — early Friday morning in Tehran — the U.S. and Iran were just three days out from a sixth round of scheduled nuclear talks in Muscat, Oman.
With the bombs dropped, questions hung in the air. How fierce would Iran’s promised response be? Did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aim to scuttle the nuclear talks? President Donald Trump had been pursuing hard-nosed diplomacy with Iran, but did he even try to stop Israel?
In what it deemed a “preemptive strike,” the Israeli military claimed to target Iran’s nuclear sites, like the one in Natanz, its ballistic missile program, nuclear scientists, and senior military officials. Among them was armed forces Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri, who was initially rumored to be dead but is apparently safe.
Given that Iran had neither shown any preparations for an attack on Israel nor made any military threats against it, the preemptive strike was certainly illegal under international law—not that Netanyahu has shown any particular concern for such niceties.
Netanyahu said the operation will continue. That, presumably, means war.
Whatever damage Iran sustained in the overnight attack, Netanyahu stated in a speech that the operation targeting Iran’s nuclear program will continue until he is satisfied that the threat it presents is eliminated. That, presumably, means war — one that will be increasingly difficult for the U.S. to stay out of, especially when it comes to defending Israel in the face of Iranian retaliation.
At this early hour exact casualty numbers from the strikes are not known, but images coming out of Tehran show multiple residential buildings damaged and explosions across the capitol city.
Several prominent figures in Iranian military, nuclear, and academic circles have been confirmed killed. The chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, was among them, as were Azad University president Mohammad Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist; Fereydoon Abbasi, a politician and former head of the Atomic Energy Organization; and Gen. Gholamali Rashid, commander of Khatam-al Anbiya Central Headquarters, Iran’s unified military command.
Ahead of the attack, Israel telegraphed its plans through leaks to the media — and Trump faced questions from a reporter on Thursday about the possibility. The president suggested a strike could happen at any time, though he maintained that he preferred diplomacy. It seems clear enough from Trump’s response that, while the U.S. may not have given Netanyahu a green light to attack, it didn’t demand that it refrain from doing so.
Tellingly, in his answer to the reporter, Trump said that an attack by Israel could “blow up” the scheduled talks between U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff and Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, but added that an attack may also be helpful.
Presumably, Trump thought an attack might give the U.S. more leverage over a weakened and chastened Iran. It’s impossible to know if Trump came up with the notion himself, or if it came out of the meeting on the Iran nuclear issue he held with his foreign policy team at Camp David on Sunday.
Regardless, if meant seriously, the idea showed a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran, which is even less likely to compromise on its nuclear program than it might have been before the attack.
Netanyahu may just have a better grasp on the Iranians than the Trump administration. It seems likely that the Israeli leader chose to attack Iran not to give Trump and Witkoff more leverage, but to put an end to the talks once and for all.
Taken aback by Trump’s announcement earlier this year that the U.S. would begin direct talks with Iran, Netanyahu has seemed determined since then to scupper the possibility of a new nuclear agreement.
Netanyahu, echoed by Israel’s staunchest supporters in Congress, demanded the talks result in a complete dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program — which he is well aware was a non-starter for Iran — or threatening military action if the talks didn’t accomplish his goal.
The Israeli strike, in the end, could have more far-reaching consequences, scuttling not just the talks themselves, but any chance of an entente between the U.S. and Iran.
In that sense, Netanyahu has succeeded. Even if talks continue, the idea Trump once had for a “successful” Iran — at peace and integrated into the world economy — is today certainly blown up.
