The answer will depend on whom you ask. But one thing is certain, the attacks by Israel and the United States on Iran’s nuclear facilities did not advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. They only added to suspicions and made a resolution more difficult to attain.
In mid-June, Israel and the United States launched massive airstrikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. After the operation, Iran, Israel and the United States all claimed victory. This reflects not only the differences in the parties’ understanding of the consequences but also of the intensity of the nuclear game. So, how should we understand the result? It may be that there are no real winners, except for a few politicians.
While Israel has achieved impressive success in intelligence and tactical operations, it has also exposed its strategic vulnerabilities in several ways. Since the end of the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel has created a myth of invincibility in the Middle East. Before the Hamas attack in October 2023, Israel had never suffered a major military setback in its homeland. However, its huge military advantages — including the fact that it is the only nuclear state in the Middle East and that it enjoys unconditional support from the U.S. — failed to prevent military offensives by Hamas, let alone deter Iran from direct long-range military retaliation.
Through a combination of ballistic missiles and drones, Iran successfully penetrated Israel’s air defense system, thereby putting Israel’s strategic vulnerability on display for the world to see. No matter how Benjamin Netanyahu brags about the success of its military operations, Israel cannot hide the huge risks posed by this vulnerability. It will have to face those in the coming years.
At the same time, while Iran suffered losses and exposed many problems of its own in the conflict, it also made a number of important gains, which are reflected in at least four dimensions:
• Iran demonstrated its military capability and political resolve to strike Israel from a distance. Also, compared with Israel, Iran has limited access to external military support. Beyond a handful of countries or international organizations, decades of sanctions have made it difficult for Iran not only to participate in foreign exchange through energy exports but also to obtain effective external military assistance. Yet it demonstrated its capability to conduct long-range strikes against Israel and thus poses a real danger to the Israeli homeland.
• Through strategic restraint and effective political operations, Iran not only successfully prevented the conflict from escalating into a confrontation with the United States but also saw clearly the fundamental differences and strategic bottom lines of the U.S. and Israel.
• Iran demonstrated strong economic, political and strategic resilience in the conflict. In other words, it still possesses industrial and military capabilities that many other countries in the region do not have, and its foundation as a major power in the Middle East has not disappeared.
• Although Iran’s nuclear program has been severely damaged, it is far from being eradicated. So the nuclear issue remains an important bargaining chip in its hands.
The United States demonstrated its strong long-range strike capability and its political will to stand up for the security of Israel. However, its military action also exposed the fact that the U.S. has limited options on the Iran nuclear issue as it tries to withdraw from the region strategically.
Although the international community may have differing assessments of the effects of the bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities based on different intelligence resources, assessment methods and political positions, a basic consensus is that the bombings severely damaged some of Iran’s nuclear facilities. They came nowhere near eliminating Iran’s nuclear capabilities. On the contrary, the strikes further undermined Iran’s nascent trust in the United States and made it more difficult for people to assess its nuclear intentions. In short, the strikes have not strengthened the U.S. position on the Iran nuclear issue, nor did they increase Iran’s willingness to negotiate.
For the Trump administration, there are only two ways to eliminate Iran’s nuclear facilities: One is regime change in Iran to eliminate the political will to pursue nuclear weapons (but this is not a practical option); the other is repetitive bombing of Iran’s nuclear facilities, to prevent it from restoring them. Given that Iran’s air defense system is partially paralyzed, it cannot be ruled out that Trump will launch another attack.
However, since Iran’s nuclear facilities are often located underground or in mountains, the effectiveness of any U.S. military adventure remains an open question. Once Iran rebuilds its air defense system and completes the reorganization of its military intelligence department, the risks involved in any such military action can also be imagined.
Except for a few politicians who have used the nuclear issue as a gimmick to seek political gains, there is no real winner. On the contrary, the damage the strikes have done to the international community is incalculable. For example, they seriously undermined the authority of the global nuclear non-proliferation regime. The Iranian nuclear facilities that were attacked are all under the supervision of the IAEA, which is a legal agency authorized to supervise nuclear facilities under the NPT. The IAEA has never even stated that Iran has a nuclear weapons program or has made a decision to develop nuclear weapons.
In addition, the strikes set an extremely bad precedent in terms of compliance with the postwar international order. Israel and the United States have ignored diplomacy, torn up international agreements and recklessly bombed another sovereign country. Such unscrupulous behavior may add to the chaos currently building in the international community and return whatever civilized portion remains to the law of the jungle.
Last but not least, the strikes profoundly damaged the process of resolving the nuclear issue. The trust deficit has always been the biggest obstacle in the negotiations. America’s military action will undoubtedly make Iranians more skeptical of U.S. sincerity.
Even more frightening is that if a country’s security is not effectively guaranteed and sincerity in nuclear negotiations is not respected, the Iranians may reassess their strategic demands, which will bring new and unpredictable challenges to the whole world.
