After an 11th hour exchange of fire, and a sweary address to reporters from Donald Trump, Israel and Iran have ceased hostilities.
The US president announced a “complete and total ceasefire” late on Monday, ending 11 days of clashes.
Israel launched attacks on Iran on 13 June, saying that it wanted to remove any chance of Tehran developing nuclear weapons.
It attacked Iranian nuclear and military facilities, and assassinated high-profile security, intelligence and military figures, as well as nuclear scientists.
Tehran, which denies it seeks a nuclear weapon, retaliated with ballistic missile strikes on Israeli towns and cities. At least 439 Iranians were killed and 28 in Israel.
While the assault left Iran undoubtedly damaged, it nonetheless provided lessons about its nuclear and military capabilities, as well as the domestic standing of the Islamic Republic itself.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on
Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Nuclear strategy rethink
There is little question that Iran suffered a setback on its nuclear programme, according to Mohammad Eslami, an expert on the proliferation of conventional and unconventional weapons in the Middle East.
“Precision Israeli strikes severely damaged key components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure,” Eslami told Middle East Eye, citing a heavy water reactor at Arak, uranium enrichment facilities in Natanz and Fordow, and research labs in Isfahan.
“These sites represented decades of accumulated technical effort and institutional knowledge,” he said.
The level of damage that Israeli, and later US, strikes inflicted on Iran’s nuclear sites is not fully clear. Iranian authorities are currently carrying out assessments to determine the extent of the damage. No nuclear fallout has been reported at the sites.
Several nuclear scientists were also killed by Israel.
“Building infrastructure is one thing; rebuilding a generation of homegrown scientists with deep expertise in nuclear physics, engineering and centrifuge design is far harder,” said Eslami.
‘Possessing a nuclear infrastructure without a credible deterrent leaves it vulnerable to high-precision attacks’
– Mohammad Eslami, weapons proliferation expert
As for Iran’s nuclear diplomacy in the near future, the conflict may have given it a clearer sense of how to move forward.
Up to now, US intelligence assessments suggest that Iran is not yet actively pursuing the manufacture of a nuclear weapon, and that it is years away from being able to produce one anyway.
Iran is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and insists that it has a sovereign right to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. Its supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, previously issued a fatwa ruling that Iran could not pursue a nuclear weapon.
After the events of the last few days, however, some ordinary Iranians have taken to the streets and demanded that Tehran go ahead and obtain nuclear weapons as a deterrent.
“Possessing a nuclear infrastructure without a credible deterrent leaves it vulnerable to high-precision attacks,” said Eslami.
He added that while Iran tries to insist that it has the right to a civilian nuclear programme, pursuing such an approach could open it to confrontation.
“One lesson Iran may internalise is that strategic ambiguity – neither confirming nor denying its capabilities – might be a more sustainable path going forward,” Eslami added.
That would be comparable to Israel’s own nuclear strategy, which is shrouded in secrecy. Israel has never publicly acknowledged that it has a nuclear arsenal.
Military ‘can surive and retaliate’
Iran suffered blows to its military infrastructure too.
Israel directly struck military assets, including missile launchers. It has also likely burned through a significant chunk of its existing arsenal of ballistic missiles, which will now need replacing.
“Despite its losses, Iran’s missile programme made a powerful impression. Its projectiles repeatedly breached Israeli and allied regional air defence systems, impacting both civilian and military targets,” said Eslami.
“Iran has shown that it can not only survive, but retaliate in meaningful ways. That capability cements its status as a regional military power.”
Trump says Israel and Iran ‘don’t know what the fuck they’re doing’
Read More »
The strikes on cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa caused major damage, completely destroying apartment buildings and other sites.
While Israel has withstood rockets and missiles from Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis over the past two years, none of these groups managed to inflict the level of cross-border damage seen in recent days.
Ali Rizk, a Lebanese political and security analyst, said that Iran showed its allies in the region how far it is willing to engage in direct military action.
In recent years, Iran has been less prone to direct attacks, relying more on proxy warfare via its allied groups.
“Iran wasn’t even silent on American attacks,” Rizk told MEE, referring to Iran’s retaliatory strike on the US’s al-Udeid military base in Qatar on Monday.
“It was a symbolic attack, but nevertheless… The fact that Iran also insisted on responding to that, gave more and more reassurance to its allies of how far Iran is willing to go.”
War rallied Iranian people
Beyond nuclear and military considerations, there were far more existential questions posed over the past two weeks, regarding whether the Islamic Republic would survive until the end of the war.
Both Israeli and US leaders insinuated regime change was one of the conflict’s key aims, in addition to curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Ultimately, however, there was no groundswell in support of overthrowing the government and political system on the streets of Iran.
‘The United States is not in the business of pursuing regime change against Iran. It still deems that to be too risky of an endeavour’
– Ali Rizk, analyst
“One of the most important conclusions to draw is that the United States is not in the business of pursuing regime change against Iran,” said Rizk. “It still deems that to be too risky of an endeavour.”
Despite Iran having a shaky few months on the global stage – with the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s autocratic government in Syria, as well as the severe weakening of Hezbollah during its war with Israel – Netanyahu was still unable to persuade the US to help it overthrow the Islamic Republic.
Rizk says that the war may have had the opposite intended effect: by inadvertently helping to rally the Iranian people around its leaders, the attacks have made the Islamic Republic’s position stronger.
“Those who didn’t designate Israel as an enemy are going to do so now. Even those who formerly didn’t support the [Iranian] government,” he said. “So this is a major strategic blunder for Netanyahu.”
