Editorial by globalnan.com
In the early hours of Friday, Israel unleashed a wave of coordinated strikes on Iranian territory, targeting nuclear enrichment facilities, military bases, and high-ranking security officials. Among the dead are top commanders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and two prominent nuclear scientists. The immediate reaction has been one of stunned outrage from Tehran and cautious silence from most world powers. But make no mistake: this is a calculated gamble by Israel—one that risks triggering a region-wide conflict, imperilling diplomacy, and further destabilising an already volatile Middle East.
The Israeli operation, though shocking in its scale and boldness, did not emerge in a vacuum. For years, Israel has vowed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has made Iran’s nuclear ambitions the centrepiece of his national security doctrine, appears to have finally acted on longstanding threats. The bombing of the Natanz uranium enrichment facility—long considered a crown jewel of Iran’s nuclear programme—along with the assassinations of senior figures such as Hossein Salami and Fereydoon Abbasi, reflects a significant escalation in Israel’s shadow war with Iran.
According to the Israeli military, the goal of the operation was to cripple Iran’s ability to enrich uranium and manufacture long-range ballistic missiles. Israeli officials claim they achieved “operational success” in destroying underground centrifuge halls, missile storage sites, and surface-to-surface missile arrays. Yet, success on the battlefield is not always synonymous with strategic victory.
The killing of senior Iranian figures, including IRGC Commander-in-Chief Hossein Salami and Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri, crosses a major red line in Iran’s calculus. Historically, Tehran has responded to such provocations with measured retaliation—calibrated to avoid full-scale war. But the sheer audacity and breadth of these strikes may make restraint politically impossible for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who vowed Israel would face a “bitter and painful” fate. Already, the Iranian military has warned of a “heavy price,” and Khamenei adviser Ali Shamkhani is reportedly in critical condition—a development that could tilt the balance decisively towards escalation.
The strikes also come at a fragile diplomatic moment. Iran and the United States have been inching towards renewed nuclear talks, mediated in part by Oman and the European Union. By attacking key nuclear sites while these talks were underway, Israel has sent a clear message: it does not trust diplomacy to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But by doing so, it may have undermined the very international consensus needed to diplomatically isolate Tehran.
The spectre of a regional conflagration now looms large. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran’s most powerful regional proxy, has remained conspicuously silent thus far, but it is unlikely to remain on the sidelines if Iranian blood continues to be spilled. Yemen’s Houthis and Iraqi militias aligned with Iran may also respond—not necessarily by attacking Israel directly, but by targeting American bases and interests in the region, a pattern seen repeatedly over the past two years.
The possibility of an Iranian retaliation that drags in the United States is especially dangerous. While former President Donald Trump denied any American role in the strikes, he made clear that the US would support Israel if Iran retaliated. This puts American personnel in Iraq, Syria, the Gulf, and even in the Eastern Mediterranean at heightened risk. Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasised that protecting US forces remains the top priority, but such assurances do little to offset the combustible reality on the ground.
Striking nuclear facilities, particularly those like Natanz and Arak, is not just militarily provocative—it is perilous. Although the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran reported that radioactive contamination from Natanz was contained, the potential for catastrophic fallout remains a haunting possibility. Rafael Grossi, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), confirmed that the UN is closely monitoring radiation levels and remains in contact with Iranian authorities. Yet the real danger lies not in the immediate aftermath, but in the precedent it sets.
Under international law, attacking nuclear infrastructure—even if militarised—can be interpreted as an act of war. More concerning is the precedent it sets for other nuclear-ambitious states, who may now be less inclined to place their facilities under IAEA safeguards, fearing pre-emptive strikes. Israel, which is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), risks undermining the very legal architecture designed to curb nuclear proliferation.
Global reaction to the Israeli strikes has been muted but ominous. The United Nations called for “maximum restraint,” warning of a descent into broader conflict. Oman, a key mediator in the US–Iran dialogue, condemned the strikes as “reckless” and a violation of the UN Charter. European capitals have urged de-escalation, but so far, no major power has taken concrete steps to rein in either side.
This silence is troubling. The international community’s failure to draw clear red lines could embolden further military actions—by Israel or its adversaries. The erosion of international norms, especially around the use of force and the protection of civilian infrastructure, risks normalising what should be unacceptable: the use of assassination and air strikes as routine instruments of statecraft.
If diplomacy is to survive, it must be urgently revived and given teeth. The United States cannot afford to remain a passive observer, nor can it allow its own negotiating channels to be destroyed by an ally’s unilateral military actions. While Israel has legitimate concerns about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, it must be reminded that international security is not served by pre-emption that breeds instability.
Washington must simultaneously engage Tehran to prevent further escalation and reassure Israel of its security interests through multilateral means. The Biden administration—or any future administration—must consider appointing a special envoy with authority to negotiate regional security frameworks that include missile proliferation, nuclear enrichment, and proxy warfare.
Additionally, the IAEA must be given unimpeded access to assess the damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities. Transparency is essential not only to verify the extent of the strikes’ impact but to prevent Iran from using the attack as a pretext to abandon nuclear oversight altogether.
Israel’s attack on Iran marks a dangerous turning point. It may have dealt a tactical blow to Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure, but at what cost? With Iranian leaders vowing revenge and regional actors watching closely, the chances of escalation are dangerously high. Unless cooler heads prevail—and diplomacy is urgently prioritised—the region risks sliding into a conflict whose consequences will be measured not just in lives lost, but in decades of regional instability.
This is not merely a clash between two bitter enemies. It is a test of whether the international system can still prevent war in an era of unilateralism, impunity, and unravelled norms. If Israel’s gamble triggers a wider war, it will not only reshape the Middle East—it will redefine the future of global conflict.
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Note: Muhammad Raiyd Qazi is the Editor of the News & Affairs Network — globalnan.com
