Israel’s strike on Iran starting early Friday morning followed a dizzying 24 hours in which the international community rebuked Iran for its nuclear malfeasance, Iranian officials said they would retaliate by accelerating nuclearization and signs piled up of a potentially imminent strike — along with warnings that Israel could be simply rattling sabers at a pivotal moment.
In the hours before the attack, experts in the region said they thought Israel’s aggressive posture — which prompted the United States to begin moving some personnel out of the Middle East — could have been meant to extract concessions from Iran in its nuclear talks with the Trump administration. They noted that while tensions are rising between Iran and the West over Iran’s failure to abide by past nuclear agreements, no one is yet taking concrete measures against Iran.
But the situation was fluid enough to worry longtime observers of the region. The threat of military pressure can take on a life of its own, Shira Efron, the research director for the Israel Policy Forum who has advised Israeli governments on defense issues, said before Israel made its move.
“We can argue that the Israeli kinetic threat to attack Iran, could be pressuring the sides to come to an agreement” that Israel favors, which would be the total dismantling of Iran’s nuclear program, she said. The problem with such pressure is that Israel can’t control the outcomes, she said.
“I would advise Israel to sit aside, let the U.S. try to take their time in terms of trying to reach an agreement,” she said. She switched to Hebrew to cite a rabbinic saying: “The work of the righteous is done by others.”
President Donald Trump on Thursday said talks with Iran to forge a deal on its nuclear capabilities were still ongoing. His top envoy negotiating conflict de-escalation, Steve Witkoff, was due in Oman early next week to continue talks with Iran.
“We remain committed to a Diplomatic Resolution to the Iran Nuclear Issue!” Trump said on Truth Social, the social media platform he owns, on Thursday. “My entire Administration has been directed to negotiate with Iran.”
He’d said the same thing earlier in the day. “I’d love to avoid the conflict,” Trump said at a press conference, asked about the prospects of an Israeli attack. “Iran’s going to have to negotiate a little bit tougher, meaning, they’re going to have to give us some things they’re not willing to give us right now.”
Witkoff is seeking a deal that would allow Iran and other countries access to uranium enriched to non-weaponization levels at an offshore facility. Iran is insisting that such a facility be in Iran.
Trump’s oft-stated lack of enthusiasm for military action appeared to put a cramp on any Israeli plans to strike Iran; Israel by most estimations needs U.S. backup to carry out an effective strike.
But Israel has increasingly been seeking to show that it can act alone. And Israeli officials have told their U.S. counterparts that Israel is ready to strike, CBS reported on Thursday, citing unnamed officials.
Asked about the imminence of an Israeli strike, Trump said, “I don’t want to say ‘imminent,’ but it looks like it’s something that could very well happen.”
Here’s what you need to know about where the situation stood before Israel shook it all up with its preemptive strike.
What was happening in terms of pressure on Iran and its nuclear program?
A majority of member nations of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, on Thursday voted to censure Iran for its noncompliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, of which it is a signatory. Iran, the IAEA said, was not allowing inspectors to reach key sites.
That could lead member nations to refer Iran’s noncompliance to the U.N. Security Council, which could snap back sanctions suspended in 2015, when the United States, under President Barack Obama, brokered a sanctions-relief-for-nuclear-rollback deal between much of the world and Iran.
Trump exited the deal in 2018, saying it was worthless, but a number of nations are still parties. Some, especially in Europe, are itching to reimpose the sanctions. European nations, eager a decade ago to come to a deal with Iran, are furious with the country for allying with Russia in its invasion of Ukraine. Britain, France and Germany have set a deadline of August for Iran to comply, or they will start the snapback process.
Iran immediately bared its teeth, saying it would enhance its enrichment capabilities, launching a new site and replacing aging centrifuges.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran has no choice but to respond to this politically motivated resolution,” the foreign ministry said. “Additional measures are also being planned and will be announced in due course.”
Separately, Iran’s defense minister told reporters that if a breakdown in talks results in a conflict Iran “will target all U.S. bases in the host countries.”
Trump on Wednesday confirmed that he ordered the removal of U.S. non-essential personnel within striking range of Iranian missiles. “They are being moved out because it could be a dangerous place, we’ll see what happens,” Trump said, stopped by reporters as he entered the Kennedy Center. “We’ve given notice to move out and we’ll see what happens.”
Earlier this week, CENTCOM commander Gen. Erik Kurilla told Congress he had laid out for Trump and his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, a “wide range” of military actions should talks fail.
But no one had referred the IAEA censure to the Security Council, so sanctions snapbacks were not yet on the table before the attack began.
So it looks like war. Is the United States involved?
Trump has set multiple deadlines for a deal, but these have come and gone without consequence. One expires this week which may explain the order to pull non-essential personnel from the region and Kurilla’s tough talk in Congress.
But in their most recent call on Monday, Trump told Netanyahu he prefers to wait out talks, Axios reported. And without U.S. backing, Israeli strike options have long been seen to be limited.
Israel would likely need American air cover in a strike on nuclear facilities, powerful U.S. bombs required to breach nuclear facilities buried deep beneath mountains, and American military assistance to repel a counterattack.
Israeli officials immediately put the entire country on high alert for a counterattack early Friday, warning of a barrage of missiles targeting civilians that could be expected.
The Biden administration rallied to Israel’s side when Israel struck Iran last year in retaliation for Iranian backing for its enemies in its war against Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah and for an intense barrage of Iranian missiles on Israel.
The same pattern is not guaranteed under Trump, said Joel Rubin, a national security analyst who was Obama’s top liaison with Congress during the Iran deal. He noted that Trump recently brokered a deal with Houthi militias in Yemen that ended strikes on U.S. ships traversing adjacent waters — but allowed the militias to keep striking Israel.
“The debate inside [Israeli] military circles is, if Israel were to strike without American support, A, would it be effective in any meaningful way? And B, what would Iran’s reaction be regionally?” said Rubin. “And based upon the fact that Trump was willing to walk away from protecting Israel from Houthi missiles, I think there’s a reason to believe that he would not come to Israel’s defense, like Joe Biden did.”
Walla, an Israeli online news site, reported on Thursday evening that the Trump administration relayed to Netanyahu that it would not directly assist Israel in an attack on Iran. It was not clear if indirect assistance, such as refueling planes, was off the table, said the news site, which quoted two American officials.
It was unclear in the immediately aftermath of the attack what kind of strike Israel had conducted. Jason Brodsky, the policy director at United Against a Nuclear Iran, a group that for years has been advocating for the country’s denuclearization, said beforehand that Israel could carry out a limited strike that could send a message.
“What they might do and what Trump might be more comfortable with, instead of a strike taking out the entirety of the nuclear program, they might aim for a more limited strike to send a message to the Iranians that, you know, ‘this is what we’re capable of. It’s going to get worse for you if you continue to reject our overtures,’” he said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is otherwise politically unpopular, may nonetheless have the backing of a nation still rattled by the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas massacre of hundreds of people inside Israel, which sparked the current Gaza war.
“That triggered Israelis to be much more risk ready,” Brodsky said, adding that Israel may be emboldened by its successes in decapitating the leadership of Hamas and Hezbollah, Brodsky said. For years, Hezbollah’s massive presence in Lebanon was a deterrent to Israeli action against the terrorist group’s principal backer, Iran.
“This is a unique window of opportunity for Israel, given that Hezbollah is so defanged,” he said.
What happens next?
Israel’s attack is likely to do damage to Iran’s military program, but none of its previous strikes have been seen as making substantial inroads against Iran’s nuclear program.
And Iran is unlikely to back down from opposing total denuclearization, said Barbara Slavin, a fellow at the Stimson Center whose expertise is in the U.S.-Iran relationship. Non-weaponized nuclear power is considered a national prerogative.
“This is really wrapped up in the whole notion of independence, which was so central to the Iranian Revolution, and it’s one of the few aspects of the revolution that I still think has resonance for ordinary Iranians who are otherwise furious with their regime,” she said.
Netanyahu’s sine qua non has been total denuclearization, and Israel and its American backers will not back away from it soon.
“Iran cannot be trusted to abide by international norms,” the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the powerhouse lobby which led advocacy against Obama’s Iran deal, said in a tweet. “No enrichment. Complete dismantlement.”
Mark Dubowitz, the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, an influential think tank that has advocated for Iran’s containment, said removing enrichment capabilities was a must.
“The real sunset clause is January, 2029, when Trump leaves office,” he said in a text message. “If Iran keeps its enrichment [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei will wait him out and sprint for the bomb when American power looks weak again. And let’s be honest: The next president, Republican or Democrat, won’t scare him nearly as much as Trump does.”
The problem for Iran regime opponents is that they are no longer preeminent in the Trump administration, as they were in Trump’s first term. Trump has in recent weeks sacked an array of Iran hawks from top National Security Council positions, and leans toward the isolationism embraced by his vice president, J.D. Vance.
“They’re not driving the bus, but they have an influence,” said Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, a leading think tank that advocates against military intervention. “They’re not in the lead any longer, because on fundamental issues, Trump sees that they’re not on the same page.”
Nothing could have emphasized the point more than when Israeli fighter jets lifted off early Friday morning, flying to Iran to stage an attack in direct contravention of Trump’s preferences.
JTA has documented Jewish history in real-time for over a century. Keep our journalism strong by joining us in supporting independent, award-winning reporting.
