SOURCE: Reuters

Israeli strikes target Iran’s nuclear sites, military prestige

Netanyahu tells Iranians their ‘day of liberation is near’

Israel lacks capability to fully dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities alone

By Crispian Balmer, Maayan Lubell, Michael Martina and Matt Spetalnick

JERUSALEM/WASHINGTON, June 14 (Reuters) – Israel’s surprise attack on Iran had an obvious goal of sharply disrupting Tehran’s nuclear programme and lengthening the time it would need to develop an atomic weapon.

But the scale of the attacks, Israel’s choice of targets, and its politicians’ own words suggest another, longer-term ambition: toppling the regime itself.

The strikes early on Friday hit not just Iran’s nuclear facilities and missile factories but also key figures in the country’s military chain of command and its nuclear scientists, blows that appear aimed at diminishing Iran’s credibility both at home and among its allies in the region – factors that could destabilize the Iranian leadership, experts said.

“One assumes that one of the reasons that Israel is doing that is that they’re hoping to see regime change,” said Michael Singh of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former senior official under President George W. Bush.

“It would like to see the people of Iran rise up,” he said, adding that the limited civilian casualties in the initial round of attacks also spoke to a broader aim.

In a video address hours after Israeli fighter jets began striking Iranian nuclear facilities and air defence systems, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, appealed to the Iranian people directly.

“The Islamic regime, which has oppressed you for almost 50 years, threatens to destroy our country, the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said.

Israel’s objective was to remove the nuclear and ballistic missile threat, he said, but added: “As we achieve our objective, we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom.

“The regime does not know what hit them, or what will hit them. It has never been weaker. This is your opportunity to stand up and let your voices be heard,” Netanyahu said.

But despite the damage inflicted by the unprecedented Israeli attack, decades of enmity toward Israel – not only among Iran’s rulers but its majority-Shi’ite population – raises questions about the prospect for fomenting enough public support to oust an entrenched theocratic leadership in Tehran backed by loyal security forces.

Singh cautioned that no one knows what conditions would be required for an opposition to coalesce in Iran.

Friday’s assault was the first phase of what Israel said would be a prolonged operation. Experts said they expected Israel would continue to go after key Iranian nuclear infrastructure to delay Tehran’s march to a nuclear bomb – even if Israel on its own does not have the capability to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program.

Iran says its nuclear programme is for civilian purposes only. The U.N. nuclear watchdog concluded this week that it was in violation of its obligations under the global non-proliferation treaty.

Israel’s first salvoes targeted senior figures in Iran’s military and scientific establishment, took out much of the country’s air defence system and destroyed the above-ground enrichment plant at Iran’s nuclear site.

“As a democratic country, the State of Israel believes that it is up to the people of a country to shape their national politics, and choose their government,” the Israeli embassy in Washington told Reuters. “The future of Iran can only be determined by the Iranian people.”

Netanyahu has called for a change in Iran’s government, including in September.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, while acquiescing to Israel’s strikes and helping its close ally fend off Iran’s retaliatory missile barrage, has given no indication that it seeks regime change in Tehran.

The White House and Iran’s mission to the United Nations in New York also did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the matter.

ENDING NUCLEAR PROGRAMME BEYOND REACH, FOR NOW

Israel has much further to go if it is to dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities, and military analysts have always said it might be impossible to totally disable the well-fortified sites dotted around Iran.

The Israeli government has also cautioned that Iran’s nuclear programme could not be entirely destroyed by means of a military campaign.

“There’s no way to destroy a nuclear programme by military means,” Israel’s National Security Adviser Tzachi Hanegbi told Israel’s Channel 13 TV. The military campaign could, however, create conditions for a deal with the United States that would thwart the nuclear programme.

Analysts also remain sceptical that Israel will have the munitions needed to obliterate Iran’s nuclear project on its own.

“Israel probably cannot take out completely the nuclear project on its own without the American participation,” Sima Shine, a former chief Mossad analyst and now a researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies, told reporters on Friday.

While setting back Tehran’s nuclear programme would have value for Israel, the hope for undermining the regime could explain why Israel went after so many senior military figures, potentially throwing the Iranian security establishment into confusion and chaos.

“These people were very vital, very knowledgeable, many years in their jobs, and they were a very important component of the stability of the regime, specifically the security stability of the regime,” said Shine.

“In the ideal world, Israel would prefer to see a change of regime, no question about that,” she said.

But such a change would come with risk, said Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. deputy national intelligence officer for the Middle East who is now at the Atlantic Council.

If Israel succeeds in removing Iran’s leadership, there is no guarantee the successor that emerges would not be even more hardline in pursuit of conflict with Israel.

“For years, many in Israel have insisted that regime change in Iran would prompt a new and better day – that nothing could be worse than the current theocratic regime,” Panikoff said. “But history tells us it can always be worse.”—-Reuters

Rescuers work at the site of a damaged building, in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Iranian Red Crescent Society/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS Purchase Licensing Rights , opens new tab

Item 1 of 2 Rescuers work at the site of a damaged building, in the aftermath of Israeli strikes, in Tehran, Iran, June 13, 2025. Iranian Red Crescent Society/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS

Summary Israeli strikes degrade Iran’s military and nuclear leadership Daring operation marks a decisive escalation

Tehran’s ability to retaliate militarily is limited

Gulf neighbours fear conflict spilling over

DUBAI, June 13 (Reuters) – Israel has gutted Iran’s nuclear and military leadership with airstrikes that leave a weakened Tehran with few options to retaliate, including an all-out war that it is neither equipped for nor likely to win, four regional officials said.

The overnight strikes by Israel – repeated for second night on Friday – have ratcheted up the confrontation between the arch foes to an unprecedented level after years of war in the shadows, which burst into the open when Iran’s ally Hamas attacked Israel in 2023.

Sign up here.

Regional security sources said it was unlikely that Tehran could respond with similarly effective strikes because its missile capabilities and military network in the region have been severely degraded by Israel since the Hamas attacks that triggered the Gaza war.

State news agency IRNA said that Iran launched hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israel on Friday in retaliation. But the Israeli military said the missiles numbered fewer than 100 and most were intercepted or fell short. No casualties were immediately reported.

The regional security sources said Iran’s leaders, humiliated and increasingly preoccupied with their own survival, cannot afford to appear weak in the face of Israeli military pressure, raising the prospect of further escalation – including covert attacks on Israel or even the perilous option of seeking to build a nuclear bomb rapidly.

“They can’t survive if they surrender,” said Mohanad Hage Ali at the Carnegie Middle East Center, a think tank in Beirut. “They need to strike hard against Israel but their options are limited. I think their next option is withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

Withdrawing from the NPT would be a serious escalation as it would signal Iran is accelerating its enrichment programme to produce weapons-grade uranium for a nuclear bomb, experts said.

Iran’s leadership has not confirmed whether it would attend a sixth round of deadlocked talks with the United States over its nuclear programme scheduled for Sunday in Oman.

Tehran’s regional sway has been weakened by Israel’s attacks on its proxies – from Hamas in Gaza to Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq – as well as by the ousting of Iran’s close ally, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Western sanctions have also hit Iran’s crucial oil exports and the economy is reeling from a string of crises including a collapsing currency and rampant inflation, as well as energy and water shortages.

“They can’t retaliate through anyone. The Israelis are dismantling the Iranian empire piece by piece, bit by bit … and now they’ve started sowing internal doubt about (the invincibility of) the regime,” said Sarkis Naoum, a regional expert. “This is massive hit.”

Israel strikes targeting key facilities in Tehran and other cities continued into the night on Friday.

The Iranian foreign ministry did not respond to requests for comment.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was defiant on Friday, saying Israel had initiated a war and would suffer “a bitter fate”.

THE NUCLEAR OPTION

Abdelaziz al-Sager, director of the Gulf Research Center think-tank, said Iran has been backed into a corner with limited options.

One possibility would be to offer assurances – in private – that it will abandon uranium enrichment and dismantle its nuclear capabilities, since any public declaration of such a capitulation would likely provoke a fierce domestic backlash.

He said another option could involve a return to clandestine warfare, reminiscent of the 1980s bombings targeting U.S. and Israeli embassies and military installations.

A third, and far more perilous option, would be to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and accelerate its uranium enrichment programme.

Such a move, al-Sager warned, would be tantamount to a declaration of war and would almost certainly provoke a strong international response – not only from Israel, but also from the United States and other Western powers.

Trump has threatened military action to ensure Iran doesn’t obtain an atomic weapon. He reiterated his position on Thursday, saying: “Iran must completely give up hopes of obtaining a nuclear weapon.”

Iran is currently enriching uranium up to 60% purity, close to the roughly 90% it would need for nuclear weapons. It has enough material at that level, if processed further, for nine nuclear bombs, according to a U.N. nuclear watchdog yardstick.

Israel’s strikes overnight on Thursday targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities, ballistic missile factories, military commanders and nuclear scientists. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it was the start of a prolonged operation to prevent Tehran from building an atomic weapon.

At least 20 senior commanders were killed, two regional sources said. The armed forces chief of staff, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Revolutionary Guards Chief Hossein Salami, and the head of the Revolutionary Guards Aerospace Force, Amir Ali Hajizadeh, were among them.

“It’s a big attack: big names, big leaders, big damage to the Iranian military leadership and its ballistic missiles. It’s unprecedented,” said Carnegie’s Hage Ali.

Sima Shine, a former chief Mossad analyst and now a researcher at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), said Israel would probably not be able to take out Iran’s nuclear project completely without U.S. help.

“Therefore, if the U.S. will not be part of the war, I assume that some parts of (Iran’s) nuclear project will remain,” she told reporters on Friday.

SHAKEN TO THE CORE

Friday’s strikes have not only inflicted strategic damage but have also shaken Iran’s leadership to the core, according to a senior regional official close to the Iranian establishment.

Defiance has transformed into concern and uncertainty within the ruling elite and, behind closed doors, anxiety is mounting, not just over the external threats but also their eroding grip on power at home, the official said.

“Panic has surged among the leadership,” the senior regional official said. “Beyond the threat of further attacks, a deeper fear looms large: domestic unrest.”

A moderate former Iranian official said the assassination in 2020 of General Qassem Soleimani, commander of the overseas arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, on the orders of President Donald Trump, started the rot.

Since then, the Islamic Republic has struggled to reassert its influence across the region and has never fully recovered. “This attack might be the beginning of the end,” he said.

If protests erupt, and the leadership responds with repression, it will only backfire, the former official said, noting that public anger has been simmering for years, fuelled by sanctions, inflation and an unrelenting crackdown on dissent.

In his video address shortly after the attacks started, Netanyahu suggested he would like to see regime change in Iran and sent a message to Iranians.

“Our fight is not with you, our fight is with the brutal dictatorship that has oppressed you for 46 years. I believe the day of your liberation is near,” he said.

The hope for regime change could explain why Israel went after so many senior military figures, throwing the Iranian security establishment into a state of confusion and chaos.

“These people were very vital, very knowledgeable, many years in their jobs, and they were a very important component of the stability of the regime, specifically the security stability of the regime,” said Shine.

Iranian state media reported that at least two nuclear scientists, Fereydoun Abbasi and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, were killed in Israeli strikes in Tehran.

EMPIRE IN DECLINE

Iran’s most powerful proxy in the region, Lebanese armed group Hezbollah, is also in a weak position to respond.

In the days leading up to the strikes on Iran, security sources close to Hezbollah told Reuters the group would not join any retaliatory action by Iran out of fear such a response could unleash a new Israeli blitz on Lebanon.

Israel’s war last year against Hezbollah left the group badly weakened, with its leadership decimated, thousands of its fighters killed and swathes of its strongholds in southern Lebanon and Beirut’s suburbs destroyed.

A direct war between Israel and Iran could swiftly expand to Gulf states whose airspace lies between the two enemies, and which host several U.S. military bases.

Gulf monarchies allied with Washington issued internal directives to avoid any provocative statements following the attacks that might anger Iran, one official Gulf source told Reuters.

Analysts said Trump could leverage the fallout from the Israeli strikes to bring Iran back to the nuclear negotiating table – but this time more isolated, and more likely to offer deeper concessions.

“One thing is clear: the Iranian empire is in decline,” said regional expert Naoum. “Can they still set the terms of their decline? Not through military terms. There’s only one way to do that: through negotiations.”

Reporting and writing by Samia Nakhoul in Dubai; Additional reporting by Parisa Hafezi and Maha el Dahan in Dubai, and Laila Bassam and Maya Gebeily in Beirut; Editing by David Clarke

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. , opens new tab

Trump’s frantic week of peace brokering hints at what he really wants

16 May 2025 Share Save James Landale • @BBCJLandale Diplomatic correspondent Share Save

BBC

“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” So supposedly said the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The diplomatic whirlwind that has surrounded US President Donald Trump this week suggests the old Bolshevik might have been onto something. For the protectionist president, who promises always to put America First, has in recent days instead been busy bestriding the world stage. He and his team have done business deals in the Gulf; lifted sanctions on Syria; negotiated the release of a US citizen held by Hamas; ended military strikes on Houthi fighters in Yemen; slashed American tariffs on China; ordered Ukraine to hold talks with Russia in Turkey; continued quiet negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal; and even claimed responsibility for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan… The pace has been breathless, leaving allies and opponents alike struggling to catch up as the US diplomatic bandwagon hurtled from issue to issue. “Just, wow!” remarked one London-based ambassador. “It is almost impossible to stay on top of everything that’s going on.” So what is going on? What have we learned in this frantic week about the US president’s emerging foreign policy? Is there something approaching a Trump doctrine – or is this just a coincidental confluence of global events?

Pomp and flattery in Saudi

A good place to start, perhaps, is the president’s visit to the Gulf where he set out – in word and deed – his vision for a world of interstate relations based on trade, not war. In a speech in Riyadh, Trump said he wanted “commerce not chaos” in the Middle East, a region that “exports technology not terrorism”. His was a prospect of a breezy, pragmatic mercantilism where nations did business deals to their mutual benefit, a world where profit can bring peace.

Getty Images In Saudi Arabia, Trump signed deals the White House claimed represented $600bn of investment in the US

As he enjoyed the flattery of his Saudi hosts and the obeisance of visiting dignitaries, the president signed – with his fat felt tip pen – deals that the White House claimed represented $600bn of investment in the US. This was Trump in all his pomp; applauded and rewarded with immediate wins he could sell back home as good for American jobs. Some diplomats privately questioned the value of the various memorandums of understanding. But the show, they said, was more important than the substance.

A ‘none of our business’ approach

Absent from Trump’s speech was any mention of possible collective action by the US and other countries; no talk of multilateral cooperation against the threat of climate change, no concerns about challenges to democratic or human rights in the region. This was a discourse almost entirely without reference to ideology or values except to dismiss their significance. Rather, he used his speech to Saudi leaders to make his clearest argument yet against Western interventionism of the past, attacking what he called “the so-called nation-builders and neo-cons” for “giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs”. To the applause of his Arab audience, he said these “Western interventionists” had “wrecked more nations than they built”, adding: “Far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins. “I believe it’s God’s job to sit in judgement. My job is to defend America.”

AFP via Getty Images ‘My job is to defend America,’ Trump told audiences this week

That reluctance to intervene was on show in recent days when it came to the fighting between India and Pakistan. In the past, the US has often played a key role seeking to end military confrontations in the subcontinent. But the Trump White House was initially cautious about getting involved. Vice-President JD Vance told Fox News the fighting was “fundamentally none of our business… We can’t control these countries”. In the end, both he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio did make calls, putting pressure on both nuclear powers to de-escalate. So too did other countries. When the ceasefire was agreed, Trump claimed US diplomacy had brokered the deal. But that was flatly dismissed by Indian diplomats who insisted it was a bilateral truce.

Pros of policy in one man’s hands

The centrality of Trump to US foreign policy has also become apparent this week. This is more than just a simple truism. On show was the lack of involvement of other parts of the US government that traditionally help shape US decision-making overseas. Take the president’s extraordinary decision to meet Syria’s new president and former jihadist, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and lift sanctions on Syria. This showed the potential advantage of having foreign policy in one man’s hands: it was a decisive and bold step. And it was clearly the president’s personal decision, after heavy lobbying by both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It was seen by some diplomats as the quid pro quo for the diplomatic fawning and investment deals Trump received in Riyadh. Not only did the decision surprise many in the region but it also surprised many in the American government. Diplomats said the State Department was reluctant to lift sanctions, wanting to keep some leverage over the new Syrian government, fearful it was not doing enough to protect minorities and tackle foreign fighters. Diplomats say this pattern of impulsive decision-making without wider internal government discussion is common in the White House. The result, they say, is not always positive.

AFP via Getty Images A billboard in Damascus, thanking Saudi Arabia and the US, after sanctions were lifted

This is due, in part, to Trump’s lack of consistency (or put simply, changing his mind). Take the decision this week to do a deal with China to cut tariffs on trade with the US. A few weeks ago Trump imposed 145% tariffs on Beijing, with blood thirsty warnings against retaliation. The Chinese retaliated, the markets plunged, American businesses warned of dire consequences. So in Geneva, US officials climbed down and most tariffs against China were cut to 30%, supposedly in return for some increased US access to Chinese markets. This followed a now-familiar pattern: issue maximalist demands, threaten worse, negotiate, climb down and declare victory.

Limitations of his ‘art of a deal’

The problem is that this “art of a deal” strategy might work on easily reversible decisions such as tariffs. It is harder to apply to longer term diplomatic conundrums such as war. Take Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On this, Trump’s policy has been fluid, to put it mildly. And this week was a case in point. Last Saturday the leaders of the UK, France, Poland and Germany visited Kyiv to put on a show of support for Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. And in a group call with Trump on French President Emmanuel Macron’s phone, they spelled out their strategy of demanding Russia agree an immediate 30-day ceasefire or face tougher sanctions. This was Trump’s policy too. The day before he wrote on social media: “If the ceasefire is not respected, the US and its partners will impose further sanctions.” But then on Sunday, President Vladimir Putin suggested instead there should be direct talks between Ukraine and Russia in Turkey on Thursday. Trump immediately went along with this, backtracking on the strategy he had agreed with European leaders a day earlier.

AFP via Getty Images Some diplomats say they are confused by Trump’s approach to the war in Ukraine. (Pictured with Putin in 2019)

“Ukraine should agree to (these talks) immediately,” he wrote on social media. “I am starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin.” Then on Thursday, Trump changed his position again, saying a deal could be done only if he and Putin were to meet in person. This puzzles some diplomats. “Does he genuinely not know what he wants to do about the war in Ukraine?” one remarked to me. “Or does he just grasp at what might offer the quickest resolution possible?”

A snub to Netanyahu?

Into this puzzling mix fell two other decisions this week. First, Trump agreed a ceasefire after a campaign bombing Houthi fighters in Yemen for almost two months. There have been questions about the effectiveness of the hugely expensive air strikes, and the president’s appetite for a long military operation. He repeatedly told his Arab hosts how much he disliked war. Second, Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, held his fourth round of talks with Iran over efforts to curb their nuclear ambitions. Both sides are hinting that a deal is possible, although sceptics fear it could be quite modest. Talk of joint US-Israeli military action against Iran seems to have dissipated.

Getty Images Netanyahu appears to have been snubbed by Trump this week, according to some onlookers

What unites both issues is that the United States was acting directly against the wishes of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu may have been the first world leader invited to the Oval Office after Trump’s inauguration, but in recent days, he seems to have been snubbed. Trump toured the Middle East without visiting Israel; he lifted sanctions on Syria without Israel’s support. His Houthi ceasefire came only days after the group attacked Tel Aviv airport. Diplomats fear Netanyahu’s reaction. Could the spurned prime minister respond with a more aggressive military operation in Gaza?

Capitalism to overcome conflict

So after this week of diplomatic hurly burly, how much has changed? Perhaps less than might appear. For all the glitz of Trump’s tour through the Middle East, the fighting and humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues unresolved. A fresh Israeli offensive seems imminent. One of Trump’s chief aims – the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia – remains distant. For all the talks about ending the war in Ukraine, there is no greater likelihood of the guns falling silent. Putin’s ambitions seem unchanged. And for all the deals to cut US tariffs, either with the UK or China, there is still huge global market instability.

Getty Images Despite deals to cut US tariffs, there is still huge global market instability

We do have a clearer idea of Trump’s global ideology, one that is not isolationist but mercantilist, hoping optimistically that capitalism can overcome conflict. We also have a clearer idea of his haste, his desire to clear his diplomatic decks – in the Middle East, Ukraine and the subcontinent – so he can focus on his primary concern, namely China. But that may prove an elusive ambition. If there are weeks when decades happen, there are also weeks when nothing happens.

Top picture credit: Getty Images