By On Friday, 13th of June, Israel initiated Operation Rising Lion, a “targeted military operation to roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival” that “would continue for as many days as it takes to remove the threat.”
Israel, surrounded by Arab states, has long emphasized it is under constant threat by its neighbors, especially in relation to Iran and its nuclear program. This operation, however, marks a new chapter not just for the countries involved and the region but for international proliferation agendas at large.
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: a cause for concern
The U.S. began an initiative for international cooperation on the usage of nuclear energy in the 1950s, called Atoms for Peace. Iran, a U.S. ally at the time, joined the initiative and began a nuclear power development program. This same initiative began the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under UN umbrella.
The 1979 Islamic Revolution halted cooperation for many years, but it seemed Iran was continuing research in secret, as more nuclear sites that Iran failed to report to the international community appeared. Iran continued to argue that it sought only peaceful usage of nuclear power to harness it for energy and research purposes, going so far as to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), vowing to support disarmament and to not pursue development of more nuclear weapons.
After the Iranian authorities confirmed the existence of a nuclear program in 2002, the IAEA began a series of investigations to make sure Iran upheld the NPT. This culminated in the 2015 Iran Nuclear Agreement, or the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which removed sanctions on Iran so long as it agreed to demolish its program and allow extensive inspections by the IAEA.
Iran nuclear deal: agreement in Vienna, 14 July 2015. From left to right: Foreign ministers/secretaries of state Wang Yi (China), Laurent Fabius (France), Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Germany), Federica Mogherini (EU), Mohammad Javad Zarif (Iran), Philip Hammond (UK), John Kerry (USA). Photo: Bundesministerium für Europa, Integration und Äusseres on Flickr.
One explicit ambition of the JCPOA was to deescalate the Middle East and prevent similar programs in surrounding countries like Saudi Arabia, who vowed they would develop weapons if Iran did, and Israel, who was opposed to the agreement and called for stricter measures.
In 2018, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the agreement and resumed sanctions, scorning other signatories but pleasing Saudi Arabia and Israel. His predecessor, Barack Obama, who oversaw the signing of the deal, said withdrawal would mean “a losing choice between a nuclear-armed Iran or another war in the Middle East.”
Iran Nuclear Capabilities – A Weapon in the Making?
Upon beginning the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the operation targeted Iran’s nuclear program, saying, “if not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time.”
“It could be a year. It could be within a few months,” he added.
While Israel has failed to provide evidence of this, its military intelligence suggested they obtained components that could be used for a bomb, like a uranium metal core and a neutron source initiator to cause an explosion.
Others are more skeptical about Iran’s construction of a nuclear weapon, though there seems to be consensus on their procurement of the materials for it, making it a ‘threshold’ state.
U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard addressed the issue in her 2025 Annual Threat Assessment, stating that Iran has shown willingness to use ballistic weapons, and while she reported no nuclear weapon construction, she emphasized that “a decades long taboo” of discussing nuclear weapons is fading.
“Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons,” she added.
Kelsey Davenport, director of non-proliferation policy at the US-based Arms Control Association, argued that “the assessment that Iran could develop a crude nuclear weapon within a few months is not new” since it could acquire enough fissile material for a bomb very quickly – and it could have done so for months.
“The actual weaponization process, that’s more challenging to accurately estimate. But it likely would have taken months, possibly up to a year, to convert weapons-grade uranium to fit it with an explosive package, then actually be able to deliver it via a missile,” Davenport said. “So there was no imminent threat of a nuclear bomb.”
The IAEA had formally declared that Iran is violating its nuclear non-proliferation commitments—marking the first such accusation in two decades. This conclusion was based on growing concerns about Iran’s expanding uranium stockpile and its failure to cooperate with IAEA inspections. The decision was backed by the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and the United States, who stated that while the findings are serious, they could also offer Iran a chance to reengage constructively.
Iran has insisted it is not developing nuclear weapons, citing religious edicts, but maintains its “non-negotiable” right to nuclear enrichment. Meanwhile, the Iranian parliament is preparing a bill to withdraw from the NPT to be able to continue its research without having to face international scrutiny.
Targeting Nuclear Facilities
In his address to the Iranian people, Netanyahu confirms that the operation attempts to remove “both the nuclear threat and the ballistic missile threat to Israel.” As such, Israel struck at the nuclear enrichment and “weaponization” programs, targeting nuclear facilities and their leading scientists, as well as military officials.
Map of the main sites of Iran’s nuclear program, 2012. Photo: Yagasi and Sémhur on Wikimedia Commons.
But hitting nuclear facilities has generated concern from the watchdog IAEA as well as the wider scientific community. The two main enrichment facilities at Natanz and Fordo and the nuclear technology center at Isfahan are reported to have been the primary targets, with Natanz suffering heavy damage that, according to the IAEA Chief Rafael Grossi, increased the chances of radiological and chemical spillage, though there seemed to be “no evidence of contamination spreading beyond the site.”
However, due to a power outage caused by the attack, there is a possibility of damage to uranium-enriching centrifuges that utilize a gas called uranium hexafluoride that can be deadly when inhaled.
This state of affairs can change with any strike posing a dangerous new reality that influences how nuclear powers relate to the options their arsenals provide them with.
Why Is This Conflict Different?
Although the world has been discussing the use of nuclear weapons for decades, the feared nuclear winter of the Cuban Missile Crisis has yet to materialise. The recent conflict between India and Pakistan brought about an escalation between two long-time rivals, both with nuclear weapons; despite this, deterrence prevailed as both powers settled to avoid mutual destruction. During the first Trump administration, the U.S. President boasted about the country’s nuclear arsenal to North Korea in a provocative manner, but the world once again evaded deployment.
Then how is the Israel-Iran conflict different?
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 2019. Photo: Alan Santos/PR/ Palácio do Planalto from Brasilia on Wikimedia Commons.
As Farah N. Jan, a senior lecturer in international relations at the University of Pennsylvania, argued in her column, this conflict could be called a “threshold war,” bringing about “the collapse of traditional deterrence frameworks” as Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons to deter Israel from more strikes and bring about an Iranian regime change, while Israel attempts to maintain its regional dominance by postponing Iranian nuclear armament.
She argues that this causes a deadlock where no side can back away from conflict. As a result, the situation escalates into total war, which is different from the “standoffs” of the Cold War.
In this new model, pre-emptive strikes are used to enforce non-proliferation, not deterrence.
Sanam Vakil, who leads Middle East analysis at the Chatham House research group, asserts that Tehran will not surrender as long as the state and its nuclear operations remain intact, allowing it to continue fighting for the right to enrichment, a right that has been a source of national pride for decades.
Meir Javedanfar, professor of Iranian Studies at Reichman University in Israel, disagrees, saying that Israel could be holding out for Iran to break under the pressure and request a compromise; such a change in attitudes happened during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s. But such a U-turn could be out of reach this time with the perceived enemy possessing nuclear weaponry.
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei in May 2025. Photo: khamenei.ir on Wikimedia Commons.
Other analysts agree that Iran has found itself backed into a corner and is now more determined than ever to acquire a nuclear arsenal.
Dr. Marion Messmer, a senior research fellow at the International Security Program, assumes that a growing military threat from Israel combined with an unstable region will give Iranian hardliners a better chance of pushing leadership over the threshold and begin assembling weapons, though it wouldn’t be enough to compete with Israel’s massive arsenal.
Reza H. Akbari, an analyst on Iran and the Middle East and North Africa Program Manager at the Institute for War and Peace Reporting, added that this also deteriorates the possibility of a diplomatic solution, since hardliners have long argued that leadership is “wasting its time to try and negotiate with the West.”
Negar Mortazavi, an expert on Iran with the Center for International Policy (CIP), agreed, citing the 2003 concession of a Libyan nuclear program by Muammar Gaddafi in exchange for sanctions relief. As officials still refer to this incident, it is clear Iranians hope to avoid such an outcome, though he is skeptical about the speed at which Iran can expand a nuclear arsenal should these hardliners gain ground.
A New Culture of War
Whichever way Iran decides, Israel’s preemptive war has already changed attitudes. Other powers in the region will see Israel as an aggressor and what its military is capable of; destabilisation is inevitable as these powers await the outcome of this conflict to see how far they can push Western allies.
As Gideon Rahman put it, a desperate Iranian regime striking back through unconventional means is the most worrisome playbook for security officials.
“That threshold is more likely to be crossed if the regime believes it is in a battle for survival and needs to demonstrate its strength to the Iranian people and the world.”
If Israel decides to utilize nuclear means to eradicate a nuclear program still in development, it could invite further proliferation and create a dangerous precedent of continuous nuclear strikes and a completely different sort of warfare.
Should this conflict establish such culture, it will not just be Middle Eastern countries seeking further nuclear proliferation.
A pre-emptive nuclear culture could mean an escalation in not just destruction and loss of life but also in obtaining and developing nuclear weaponry on a worldwide scale.
Whatever their conclusions about the war and its outcome may be, analysts appear to agree on one thing: the Israel-Iran conflict, though not entirely new or unexpected, is rewriting the laws of nuclear politics and global security with every strike.
