It needs to be called out for what it is. After decades of shadow conflict—covert strikes, cyber sabotage, proxy battles, and a near conflict last year—Israel and Iran are now at war.
Israel has launched Operation Rising Lion, striking Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities, its leading nuclear scientists, top leadership of Iran’s military, especially the Revolutionary Guards, military headquarters and weapons storage, ballistic missile facilities, and air defences. This marks a profound shift in the region’s strategic landscape. This is a war Israel has long wanted to fight—a direct campaign to roll back a nuclear threat it sees as existential for the survival of the Jewish state of 1 crore.
The trigger, perhaps, is the latest IAEA report published in May 2025. It confirmed that Iran has amassed more than 400 kg of uranium enriched to 60% U-235, plus thousands more enriched to lower levels. This stockpile is enough for up to nine nuclear weapons.
The agency also reported that Iran has disabled key monitoring systems, refused access, and ceased implementing the Additional Protocol, making full verification impossible. The significantly increased production and accumulation of highly enriched uranium by Iran, the only non-nuclear-weapon State to produce such nuclear material, is of serious concern.
This is the clearest nuclear breakout profile the world has seen in decades—and Israel decided it could wait no longer.
Israel’s strikes went beyond nuclear weapons facilities. They have killed senior IRGC commanders and nuclear engineers and targeted oil and gas infrastructure. Destruction of the program in its entirety is likely beyond reach. Iran’s nuclear sites are dispersed, fortified, and in some cases buried deep underground. So Israel is doing what it can–targeting centrifuges and research centres, and eliminating the human capital behind Iran’s progress. It’s a strategy of degradation, disruption, and demoralisation.
What sets this round of conflict apart is Israel’s open psychological and political messaging. After the first wave of strikes, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly addressed the Iranian people, saying, “The time has come for the Iranian people to unite around its flag and its historic legacy, by standing up for your freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.”
This is a call for uprising. While Israel officially denies that regime change is its objective, Netanyahu’s words—combined with military actions targeting Iran’s top command—make the message clear.
Should this campaign reach the supreme leader himself, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, it would be a seismic escalation. The resulting power vacuum could paralyse Tehran and offer the most serious chance since 1979 for Iran’s opposition to challenge the regime.
Iran has responded with massive missile strikes that are breaching Israel’s famed air defences and causing extensive damage. It has targeted Israel's military, civilian and economic targets, including the Haifa port owned by India’s Adani group, and an oil refinery. But its regional toolbox is lighter than ever. Hamas has been severely weakened in Gaza, Hezbollah degraded in Lebanon, and Shiite militias in Iraq and Syria have been targeted by both Israel and the US. Iran, for the first time in decades, is fighting without its force multipliers.
Even so, it remains dangerous. Its ballistic missiles and asymmetric assets across the region still pose risks. And if Iran strikes US troops or bases, Washington may be pulled into a war it does not want. The US has warned Iran against targeting it, saying it is not involved in the Israeli operations.
Here lies the paradox. This war, meant to prevent a nuclear Iran, may accelerate its nuclear path. If the regime survives this campaign, it may conclude that only nuclear weapons can ensure its survival and deter future Israeli or Western action. That same logic drove North Korea’s pursuit of the bomb.
The IAEA’s Board of Governors, in a formal resolution noted with concern that Iran has failed to account for undeclared uranium, refused technically credible answers, sanitised suspected sites, and retained contaminated equipment from a former weapons program. The agency says it cannot confirm that Iran’s program is peaceful—a damning verdict under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has said the operation will “last for as long as it takes.” But how long? Weeks? Months? And what is the endgame?
Can Israel permanently alter Iran’s nuclear trajectory? Does it have the capability to wage the long-distance campaign at a high tempo? Can Iran mount a credible counteroffensive and sustain it? Or will both sides slide into a prolonged, open-ended conflict?
If the situation escalates even further, Iran could attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz, which transports 20% of global oil supplies. It can also target ships in the region, which has already been hit by Houthi missiles. This will raise energy prices and have an impact on the global economy, which is already under pressure from Trump's tariffs. The risk of the war expanding to encompass the broader region is also significant.
Beyond the immediate battle, this war marks a breakdown of diplomacy, verification, and deterrence. The nuclear non-proliferation regime is under stress not seen since the Cold War. The IAEA has sounded the alarm.
But the bombs are real. The missiles are flying. And Iran’s uranium stockpile is growing. The outcome of this war will reshape West Asia and beyond.
Yusuf T Unjhawala is an adjunct scholar at The Takshashila Institution. He tweets at @YusufDFI
