How Israel’s strike on Iran could redefine Middle East
Dawn of fire over Tehran has shattered decades of covert warfare could redraw alliances, test US-Israel ties, and push the region to a dangerous nuclear brink
By Iftikhar Gilani
People in Tehran woke up before dawn on Friday to the earthshaking roar of Israeli airstrikes pounding their capital and other cities.
In a stunning escalation that brought decades of covert sabotage and proxy conflict into the open, over 200 Israeli jets struck some 100 sites across Iran.
Among the dead, according to Iranian and Israeli sources, were top military commanders—including IRGC chief Hossein Salami and armed forces chief Mohammad Bagheri—as well as at least six senior nuclear scientists. The facility at Natanz was among the confirmed targets; Fordow and Isfahan are also believed to have sustained major damage.
The operation, named “Rising Lion,” was, according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a preemptive act of national survival. In a defiant address, he declared that Iran had enriched enough uranium for nine bombs and had begun weaponization.
“If we don’t act now, we simply won’t be here,” Netanyahu said. He further invoked the Holocaust-era vow of “Never Again,” underscoring the existential framing of the assault.
But beneath the thunder of airstrikes lies a deeper story—one of shifting alliances, nuclear thresholds, and strategic calculations that may reshape the region for years.
Netherlands-based nuclear expert Susi Snyder expressed concern that Iran’s nuclear programme may now go further underground and opaque following the Israeli strikes.
She noted that Iran had already enriched uranium to 60 percent—still short of the 90 percent level required for weaponization, but nonetheless a serious escalation. Snyder also emphasized the need for the international community to scrutinize Israel’s own undeclared nuclear arsenal, warning that it too poses a significant threat to regional stability.
Atlantic Council experts, including former U.S. and Israeli diplomats and defense officials, now warn that the fallout could extend far beyond the ruins of Tehran’s air defense systems.
The immediate objective was clear: delay or dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities and blunt its ability to retaliate.
According to Rachel Whitlark, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, the multipronged Israeli assault was aimed not just at enrichment sites like Natanz and Fordow, but at decapitating Iran’s command structure and missile defenses. Israel’s goal, she suggests, was twofold—disrupt the regime’s nuclear progress and disable its ability to strike back.
Iranian retaliation is certain, but what form it takes is unclear. Already, Iran has launched over 100 drones toward Israel, with Israeli defense systems on high alert. But Tehran’s choices are narrowing. With Hezbollah weakened, Hamas devastated, and the Houthis overstretched, Iran’s asymmetric tools are blunted.
Iran vows retaliation
Iranian commander Abdolrahim Mousavi has vowed “severe punishment” in line with Supreme Leader Khamenei’s orders, but Iran’s capacity to inflict strategic pain on Israel is diminished.
Yet the danger is not simply military—it is diplomatic. As Jonathan Panikoff of the Atlantic Council notes, this strike could represent a “tectonic shift” in U.S.-Israel relations. Trump’s administration had urged caution, and although President Trump was informed of the operation beforehand, his official position was one of non-involvement.
“We are not involved,” said Secretary of State Marco Rubio, distancing Washington from the strikes even as it scrambled to protect its forces in the Gulf.
Iran’s sense of strategic encirclement is now acute. On Thursday—just hours before the strikes—the IAEA issued its most damning rebuke in two decades, declaring Iran in breach of non-proliferation commitments.
Within hours, the IRGC vowed to rebuild, and President Pezeshkian declared that “we will not back down.” In fact, Israeli attacks may accelerate, not prevent, Iran’s dash to the bomb. For Iran’s leadership, a nuclear weapon is now not just a deterrent—it may be seen as essential for regime survival, much like North Korea’s arsenal.
The implications for the US are profound. Trump now faces a critical choice: decouple from Israel’s military campaign, or lend US firepower to a deeper assault on Iran’s buried nuclear infrastructure.
Daniel Shapiro, former US ambassador to Israel, warns that Israel’s go-it-alone posture—without Washington’s explicit support—marks a break from decades of tight coordination. This divergence has been building: from Trump’s removal of pro-Israel advisers like Mike Waltz, to his separate negotiations with the Houthis, to his visible coolness toward Netanyahu during their recent White House encounter.
For the Gulf states, too, the horizon is clouded. Joze Pelayo of the Atlantic Council argues that Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar now find themselves trapped between Iran and Israel.
Their hard-won role as diplomatic brokers is under threat, and Iran has already begun pressing Arab governments to look the other way as it prepares for retaliation.
As the air clears, what emerges is not just a damaged nuclear infrastructure, but a deeply altered geopolitical terrain.
Matthew Kroenig writes that Israel has likely achieved tactical success but at a potentially enormous strategic cost. Iran’s nuclear ambitions may now harden; the U.S. may be pulled into a war it doesn’t want; and Israel, for all its military precision, still lacks a postwar strategy. Regime change remains unlikely. What follows may be more IRGC, not less.
And then there’s the Strait of Hormuz. Maritime analysts warn that any major retaliation could choke the world’s most important oil chokepoint.
A full closure could send oil soaring above $100 per barrel, and early disruptions are already being monitored closely by U.K. and U.S. naval commands. Past threats from Iran to shut the strait have proved empty—but this time, the stakes are different.
In the end, this was not just a military strike—it was a recalibration of power. Israel invoked its Begin Doctrine for a third time, hitting a nuclear-armed adversary to protect its own future. But as Thomas Warrick of the Atlantic Council reminds us, there is no postwar plan—only more targets and more uncertainty.
What happens now hinges on four unresolved questions: Will Iran escalate or absorb the blow? Will the U.S. stand aside or be pulled in? Will Arab states uphold their security ties or stay neutral? And will Israel—flushed with operational success—recognize that tactical brilliance is not the same as strategic foresight?
Across the region, the Middle East is holding its breath. And the world is watching—because what began as a midnight strike could become the first act in a wider and darker war.
We must take charge of our narrative. Research indicates that 92% of their Muslim coverage is negative. Help us change that.
Have Your Say!
Have you been affected by the issues raised in this story? Please share your experiences by emailing haveyoursay@soundvision.com.
Please include a contact number if you are willing to speak to a Muslim Network TV’s representative. You can also get in touch in the following ways:
Tweet: @MuslimNetworkTV
