In the early hours of a Friday morning, Israel launched a long-anticipated military operation on Iranian soil. The precision strikes killed senior Iranian military figures, crippled air defense systems, and reportedly destroyed nuclear enrichment facilities. While the Israeli government claims the move was a preemptive strike against an imminent nuclear threat, the attack marks a sharp escalation in tensions that have simmered for decades — and could redraw the power dynamics of the Middle East.
But why now? And what does it mean for the region and the world?
This explainer offers a comprehensive look into the roots of the conflict, the motives behind Israel’s attack, and the wider implications of what could become a protracted confrontation.
What triggered the Israel-Iran conflict?
Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed the attack and declared that military operations would continue “as long as necessary.” Among the dead were top-ranking figures of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), including its commander Hossein Salami, and Iran’s armed forces chief of staff, Mohammad Bagheri. Israeli warplanes also targeted prominent nuclear scientists.
The strikes came despite ongoing diplomatic negotiations between Iran and the United States over the future of Tehran’s nuclear program, leading many analysts to see the operation as a coordinated attempt to pressure Iran at a critical juncture.
“Iran could have produced a nuclear weapon in a very short time — it could be a year, or it could be a few months,” said Netanyahu in a televised statement.
According to an unnamed Israeli military official, Iran had “enough fission material for 15 nuclear bombs within days.”
Is Iran Really an Imminent Nuclear Threat?
Israel, which has never officially confirmed its possession of nuclear weapons, maintains military dominance in the region partly due to its nuclear deterrent. An Iranian bomb would upend that balance, potentially igniting a regional arms race.
However, international assessments tell a more nuanced story. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) recently reported Iran’s non-compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), though it stopped short of confirming the existence of a nuclear weapons program.
“We continue to assess that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has not authorised the nuclear weapons programme he suspended in 2003,” said U.S. intelligence chief Tulsi Gabbard in March.
Since the U.S. withdrawal from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal in 2018, Iran has expanded its nuclear activities, but it still denies any intention of developing nuclear arms.
So, if not an immediate nuclear threat, what really motivated the strikes?
The Octopus Theory: Hitting the Head, Not the Tentacles
Netanyahu has often described Iran as “the head of the octopus,” with proxies like Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Hamas forming its tentacles. Since the outbreak of the Gaza war in October 2023, Israel has aggressively targeted these groups, with significant success in dismantling their leadership.
With Hezbollah weakened and Iran’s support network under strain, Israeli hawks saw a strategic opening — not just to delay a nuclear program, but to fundamentally alter the balance of power.
“These people were very vital, very knowledgeable… a very important component of the stability of the regime,” said Sima Shine, a former Mossad analyst.
According to experts cited by Reuters, Israel’s long-term aim might even extend to destabilizing Iran’s ruling elite.
Regime Change: A Hidden Agenda?
In a rare move, Netanyahu addressed the Iranian people directly, calling the Islamic Republic oppressive and urging citizens to “seize the opportunity” to reclaim their freedom. Such rhetoric, alongside selective targeting of regime-critical infrastructure and personnel, has led experts to suggest that Israel may be aiming at more than deterrence — possibly even regime destabilization.
“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.
“The strikes are calculated to disrupt not just Iran’s capabilities but its confidence,” said one security analyst. But as history reminds us, regime change is neither easy nor always favorable. A collapse of Tehran’s current leadership could usher in a more radical successor.
Domestic Calculations: Netanyahu’s Political Clock
Critics suggest the timing may also reflect Netanyahu’s personal political calculus. Facing intense pressure from corruption charges and accusations over his handling of the October 7 Hamas attack, the Prime Minister is accused of exploiting conflict to maintain power.
“There was no imminent threat to Israel. This was not inevitable,” said Israeli political analyst Ori Goldberg. “The [IAEA] report did not contain anything suggesting Iran posed an existential threat.”
Some members of Netanyahu’s coalition narrowly avoided a parliamentary collapse on the same day as the strikes. Yet the attack appears to have galvanized political unity — at least temporarily — with opposition leaders Yair Lapid and Yair Golan praising the operation.
Still, left-wing lawmaker Ofer Cassif warned that Netanyahu was driven by “stress” and an “addiction to blood and force.”
Legal and Diplomatic Fallout
From a legal standpoint, Israel’s attack could represent another breach of international law. The UN Charter permits self-defense only in the face of an “ongoing or imminent” attack — criteria that may not have been met.
“There is no indication that an attack by Iran against Israel was imminent,” said Michael Becker, international law professor at Trinity College Dublin. “Nor is it sufficient under international law for Israel to justify the attack based on its assessment that Iran will soon have a nuclear capability.”
While the U.S. remains Israel’s staunchest ally — often shielding it from criticism at the UN — Washington has not officially endorsed regime change in Iran.
What’s Next? Retaliation and Risks
The future is uncertain, but most analysts agree on one thing: this is not the end.
Israel has signaled this is merely the first phase of a prolonged campaign. While a full dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program is likely beyond Israel’s military capabilities without American support, the attack could set the stage for new negotiations — or a dangerous escalation.
“There’s no way to destroy a nuclear programme by military means,” said Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel’s National Security Adviser.
The bigger question now is whether this operation will destabilize Iran enough to weaken its regional influence — or whether it will strengthen hardline elements, fueling further conflict.
“History tells us it can always be worse,” cautioned Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. intelligence official. “There is no guarantee the successor that emerges would not be even more hardline.”
A Conflict Beyond Borders
This latest episode in the Israel-Iran rivalry is not just a bilateral dispute. It is a collision of ideologies, ambitions, and survival instincts, unfolding in a region already on edge.
What makes this moment unique is not just its military significance, but its potential to redraw the geopolitical map of the Middle East. Whether it escalates into a broader war or leads to new negotiations, the consequences will be felt far beyond Tel Aviv or Tehran.
At Sampadak Express, we believe in explaining the why, not just reporting the what. Stay with us as we continue to follow this evolving story with independence, nuance, and integrity.
