The situation in the Middle East is seeing a dramatic escalation. What had long been a covert conflict — waged through intelligence operations, cyberattacks, and proxy wars — has now escalated into open warfare between Israel and Iran. The mutual attacks, which have intensified since Israel’s initial strike on 13 June 2025, are — unlike in the past — no longer intended merely as deterrents. As a result, the international community, which has long sought to prevent such a scenario, is now confronted with a new reality.
Hamid Mohseni was born in Iran and grew up in Germany. He has followed developments in the country since 2009 and is involved in left-wing solidarity initiatives that support the democratic and social protests there.
All Signs Pointed to Escalation
Israel is attacking Iran with fighter jets and drones. According to reports, car bombs have also been detonated and arson attacks carried out, particularly in Tehran. Israel’s first strike — which was years in the making — was staged in a particularly impressive manner. The Israeli secret service is said to have established covert drone bases inside Iran itself and disabled the Iranian air defence system for several hours, resulting in virtually no resistance on the first night.
The attack targeted Iran’s nuclear programme, killing up to 20 high-ranking members of the Revolutionary Guard as well as leading nuclear scientists. The Natanz and Fordow nuclear facilities were also hit. With the bombing of civilian infrastructure, 78 people were killed on the first night alone and more than 300 injured. The death toll has now risen to around 225, with thousands more wounded.
In addition to the nuclear facilities, the strikes have been directed at military infrastructure (especially missile sites), ports, airports, and oil and gas installations. Yet again, we are seeing images of bombed residential areas. Israel’s shock strategy is hitting Iran on multiple fronts, and the effects are being felt across the entire country.
Israel stated that planning for the military operation went back years, something which was borne out by the scale of the initial wave of attacks.
In response to the Israeli attacks, the Iranian regime is reported to have already deployed Basij militias — made up of volunteer regime loyalists — at key checkpoints. Above all, however, Tehran has launched several waves of drones and ballistic missiles at Israel, primarily targeting military and political infrastructure, including the Ministry of Defence. Although roughly 90 percent of the missiles were intercepted, the newer generation of missiles appears to be causing significant damage. Civilians have also been affected in Israel; 25 people have been killed and many more injured.
The mood among the Iranian population is polarized. The revolutionary process of recent years has revealed a deep rift between the majority of the population and those in power. As a result, some Iranians — in their desperation — have come to hope for foreign intervention. Such voices can still be heard today; in the early days of the conflict, there were even expressions of joy at the attacks and the deaths of Revolutionary Guard leaders. But the longer the war drags on, and the higher the civilian toll becomes, the more these voices fall silent — while louder grow the voices who say: “now more than ever, we need a nuclear bomb to deter future attacks”. This is a logic shared by those in power.
As the First Gulf War showed, an external threat in Iran not only results in rising fears, but also increased loyalty to the state. Iranian exile media outlets — especially those on the spectrum from conservative to far-right monarchist, and whose strongest supporters, from the US and Israel, go on to claim that “the Iranian people” welcome the war — are stoking hopes of widespread resistance within the country. But for the most part, this is simply an exercise in propaganda and they are speaking primarily for themselves.
In principle, attacks from outside spell doom for the country’s process of revolutionary change, as they demobilize protests and grassroots movements — such as the recent mass truckers’ strike in Iran, which had drawn enormous public solidarity. Historically, the largest waves of executions often occur in the wake of such conflicts.
Failed Negotiations
The sixth round of US–Iran negotiations on the Iranian nuclear programme had been scheduled to take place three days after the first Israeli strike. Although the talks had been tough, both sides repeatedly emphasized the possibility that an agreement could be reached.
Iran entered the negotiations in a weakened position. On one hand, years of economic crisis have left much of the population in a state of existential hardship — for which they hold the regime responsible. On the other hand, the so-called “Axis of Resistance” led by Iran — and composed primarily of the Assad regime, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the Palestinian group Hamas, and the Yemeni Houthi militias — had recently been severely weakened, and in some cases even defeated, by Israeli attacks. Against this backdrop, Iran sought to persuade the US to frame the negotiations only around the nuclear issue and uranium enrichment — and not, as Israel and parts of the US government had been demanding, around the missile programme or Iran’s support for the Axis of Resistance.
Trump, for his part, appeared to vacillate. Publicly, he attempted to dissuade Israel from launching a military strike and continued to stress the need for negotiations, even as the war was already underway. However, Trump later admitted that he had been informed of the attacks in advance.
It is widely known that the United States not only provides Israel with extensive military support — particularly through the Iron Dome — but also supplies it with intelligence. Israel has also stated that planning for the military operation went back years, something which was borne out by the scale of the initial wave of attacks. Iran, by contrast, appears to have been genuinely caught off guard by the airstrikes; the regime had evidently been counting on negotiations. For now, those talks are off the table.
For over 15 years, Netanyahu has claimed — without providing any evidence — that Iran is on the verge of building a nuclear bomb.
This recent escalation was rooted in a series of developments. One day before the Israeli strike, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced — for the first time in 20 years — that Iran was in violation of its joint agreements on uranium enrichment.
Just days earlier, Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence had claimed to have intercepted thousands of documents concerning Israel’s nuclear programme and US involvement in it, and to have published some of them. Reportedly, the documents included evidence suggesting that the IAEA is being influenced by Israel — a claim that would call the agency’s neutrality into question.
Next came the expiration of a 60-day deadline the US president had set for Iran to reach an agreement. The news agency Reuters, citing senior Israeli sources, reported that Netanyahu’s order to attack came shortly after a phone call with Trump. Whether Trump took the deadline he had set seriously — and whether he may have given Israel the green light after it passed without resolution — remains unclear.
Israel’s Motives for the Attack
By 7 October 2023, the now 75-year-old Benjamin Netanyahu was facing intense domestic criticism; many already saw his political career as over. The public was fed up with his government, much of which was dominated by the far right.
In retrospect, the Hamas massacre of 7 October 2023 turned out to be a “gift” for Netanyahu. It allowed the Israeli prime minister to do what has often proven politically effective in seemingly hopeless domestic situations: start a war and then repeatedly escalate it. This war is keeping him afloat politically. While his declared objective was initially to defeat Hamas in the Gaza Strip, his sights were set from the beginning on the entire “axis of resistance”, with Iran as the “final boss”.
Since then, Israel has nearly eliminated Hamas and Hezbollah, and has played a key role in the Syrian civil war, which ultimately led to the fall of Assad. All of this laid the groundwork for the current attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran — Israel’s chief rival and sworn enemy in the region.
For over 15 years, Netanyahu has claimed — without providing any evidence — that Iran is on the verge of building a nuclear bomb. He continues to cite this when justifying Israel’s actions as self-defence. But in the absence of any proof, the first strike on 13 June and the war that followed are violations of international law. Netanyahu was also an outspoken opponent of the 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran — the deal from which Trump’s US withdrew three years later. It is against this backdrop that Netanyahu rejected the prospect of a renewed deal. He has now effectively torpedoed that possibility — and with the airstrikes, helped ensure that those who oppose signing a new treaty have gained the upper hand within the US administration. This has cleared the way for US hardliners to advance their own agendas: the dismantling of Iran’s nuclear programme, the termination of its missile programme, and the definitive destruction of the “axis of resistance”. Achieving these goals would spell the end of Iran’s entire foreign policy model.
Reuters, citing two US sources, reported that Trump had prevented Israel from assassinating Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei during the first wave of attacks. Still, the regime change that Netanyahu is pursuing could also be driven by large-scale bombing and destruction of the country — provided that armed rebel groups on or near Iran’s borders (in Kurdistan, Balochistan, Azerbaijan, etc.) are simultaneously supported in an effort to spark a civil war. As of now, however, there is no concrete evidence of such a plan.
Trump’s Dilemma
For Donald Trump, who conducts politics like it’s the Wild West, war and negotiations are by no means mutually exclusive. In a remarkable feat of rhetorical juggling, he repeatedly calls for negotiations, while at the same time refusing to rule out direct US intervention in the war. Such a move would likely spell military defeat for the Islamic Republic of Iran — but for Trump, it would also represent a break with his stated policy. After all, he has consistently promised to keep the US out of wars and to resolve the conflicts in Gaza, Ukraine, and Iran through diplomacy, so he can shift his focus to containing the rise of China as a global superpower.
But following Israel’s attack on Iran, the US is once again being drawn into the conflict. This has sparked criticism from within the MAGA camp — including from influential figures such as journalist Tucker Carlson and Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon — as this is exactly what they want to prevent; they have also been critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza.
The mullahs and their Revolutionary Guards have made it crystal clear that they will not go quietly — they will fight to the last bullet.
The US government now faces a strategic dilemma: it could alienate Netanyahu by genuinely managing to end the war in the near future and persuading Iran to accept a deal only allowing strictly monitored nuclear technology for civilian use — a scenario that currently seems unlikely, but may become feasible once hostilities cease.
Alternatively, Washington could pursue a different path, one that Israel would likely support: forcing Iran into a far more stringent agreement — no nuclear programme, disarmament, and/or severing ties with the “axis of resistance”. The longer the war drags on, while Iran is unable to respond militarily, the more probable this outcome becomes. The problem, however, is that the Islamic Republic — where hardliners are now also gaining political ground — is unlikely to accept such terms, as doing so would effectively spell its own demise.
A possible interim solution could involve the international community bringing both sides to the negotiating table and working out a compromise. Turkey has already offered to mediate, and similar signals have come from Russia and China. Yet what such a compromise would entail remains entirely unclear; any such negotiation would be a diplomatic balancing act.
Should these scenarios either not come to pass, or come to nothing, Iran could, after prolonged bombardment, be plunged into civil war. And for geopolitical reasons, the US would not be in a position to simply stand by. It would find itself drawn even deeper into the region’s conflicts.
What’s more, such a civil war could last for years, perhaps even decades. The mullahs and their Revolutionary Guards have made it crystal clear that they will not go quietly — they will fight to the last bullet.
Translated by Hunter Bolin and Eve Richens for Gegensatz Translation Collective.