This two-part essay traces how Israel and Iran, once bound by a shared past, became bitter foes. Part One examines the current stand-off; and Part Two will unearth the deeper roots of their rupture.
By Chudi Okoye
If the 6th-century BC Achaemenid king Cyrus the Great were alive today, there’s no telling how he would view the ongoing hostilities between his Iranian (Persian) descendants and the Israeli progenies of an ancient people he once liberated from Babylonian captivity. Known to be just and benevolent – a peacemaker and tolerant ruler who supported local customs among the disparate peoples of his vast empire – it is unclear whether his noble sensibilities would be wounded by the crass calculations and decades-long furies that now define Iran-Israel relations, which exploded in the last couple of days with a terrifying Israeli attack on Iran.
It was an attack that once again demonstrated Israel’s power and absolute military superiority in the Middle East. An attack that made nonsense, yet again, of the risible propaganda that portrays Israel – a nation with immense diplomatic leverage and the world’s 15th strongest military – as a regional underdog: the solitary David pitched against a plethora of implacable Arab Goliaths.
It was a measure of that superiority that even though the attack had been telegraphed for months, it still caught Iran off-guard, as it appeared initially dazed and overwhelmed. Iran may have been lulled by what now seems a dubious and possibly diversionary nuclear parley with the United States; but Israel’s long history of sabotaging Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and its stated objections to the talks should have signaled an imminent strike to derail it.
Hot War
In the pre-dawn hours of June 13, 2025, the Iranian skies lit up with fearsome fire and fury. In a meticulously coordinated operation, more than 200 Israeli fighter jets, supported by drone squadrons, electronic warfare platforms, and precision cyber strikes, unleashed an unprecedented aerial assault across Iranian territory. Over 100 targets were struck, ranging from nuclear research facilities and missile bases to command centers and military infrastructure.
The scale of the operation was staggering. As was its sophistication. Israeli F-35 stealth fighters reportedly penetrated Iranian airspace undetected, their electronic warfare suites jamming radar networks across a broad arc – from the northwestern city of Tabriz to Isfahan in the central region, home to critical nuclear infrastructure. Simultaneously, cyber weapons – likely evolved from the infamous Stuxnet virus that had previously disrupted Iran’s enrichment program – disabled key nodes in Iran’s integrated air defense system. The operation demonstrated Israel’s formidable reach and technical prowess, while exposing surprising vulnerabilities in Iran’s air defense posture.
The devastation was surgical and extensive, though questions remain whether Israel achieved its ultimate objective: a decisive degradation of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. On the first day and in follow-up strikes over the next several days, Israel reportedly destroyed parts of the famous Natanz nuclear facility and damaged Isfahan’s uranium conversion plant. Missile complexes near Tabriz and Kermanshah were hit, as were Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) facilities near Tehran and in Piranshahr. Civilian infrastructure and military assets were also damaged or destroyed, underscoring the breadth of the assault.
The strikes hit multiple high-value targets, including the Arak heavy-water reactor complex, the classified Parchin military research center, and sections of the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant. Also targeted was the previously undisclosed Qom Nuclear Research Institute, where Iran had reportedly made breakthroughs in uranium metallurgy – a critical step toward weaponization. Its destruction carried deep symbolic weight: this was believed to be a site where Iranian scientists had been working to overcome the final technical barriers separating civilian nuclear activity from military capability.
Still, despite the scale and coordination of the attack, it remains unclear whether Israel breached Iran’s most deeply fortified nuclear redoubts. Analysts later confirmed that Iran’s most heavily protected subterranean installations – such as the deeply buried centrifuge halls at Fordow and Natanz – remained largely intact, shielded from destruction by their extreme depth and reinforced structure. While the strikes delivered a powerful demonstration of Israeli resolve and capability, they may not have eliminated Iran’s nuclear breakout potential.
By the end of the first day’s attacks, Iran reported at least 78 dead and 329 injured, including civilians (many women and children), with the death toll since rising to 224 and injuries at over 1,277. The strikes decimated Iran’s military leadership, some sources reporting that at least 20 senior commanders were killed. Among the dead were Armed Forces Chief of Staff Mohammad Bagheri, IRGC Aerospace Force chief Amir Hajizadeh, IRGC senior commander Gholam Ali Rashid, IRGC commander Hossein Salami, IRGC air defense unit commander Davoud Shaykhian, and IRGC drone unit commander Taher Pour. Israel claimed a strike on an underground bunker killed most of the IRGC Aerospace Force leadership after they had convened for a meeting. At least nine nuclear scientists were confirmed killed by Israel, some sources reporting up to 14, including physicists Fereydoon Abbasi and Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, the celebrated chief of Iran’s nuclear program who was assassinated in 2020. The attacks, described by observers as a systematic decapitation strike, also destroyed residential areas, with Iranian media confirming civilian deaths and injuries in multiple provinces. In a sign of internal fallout, Iran executed one of its nationals days later for allegedly passing intelligence to Israel.
Though it had to have expected the blitzkrieg, Iran’s response was forceful but ultimately constrained by Israel’s technological edge. In the hours and days that followed, Tehran launched at least 370 ballistic missiles and hundreds of drones in successive waves, targeting Israel’s military bases in the Negev and suspected intelligence facilities near Tel Aviv, as well as civilian areas. Israel’s layered defenses – Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow systems, and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) – intercepted a preponderance of incoming projectiles, but some missiles penetrated, striking 30 locations and causing significant casualties and infrastructure damage, including in central Tel Aviv and Bat Yam. As of June 16, at least 24 Israelis had been killed and 592 wounded, with 10 in critical condition. Iran claimed to have downed Israeli F-35 fighters and detained their pilots, but Israel has vigorously denied these claims and no independent verification has emerged. The exchange, while illustrating Iran’s capacity for retaliation, also underscored the stark power asymmetry at this early stage of the confrontation, especially following years of crippling sanctions. Iran’s proxy responses – symbolic salvos from Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Houthi forces in Yemen – were easily intercepted.
Grim Implications
In short order, the message became clear: Israel’s “Operation Rising Lion” was not merely a preventive strike. It was a demonstration of dominance. Tel Aviv framed the attack as a preemptive move against an imminent Iranian nuclear breakout – citing intelligence that Tehran had amassed enough 60%–enriched uranium for three nuclear warheads within months – but the scale and precision of the strike signaled something far more assertive. This was not deterrence; it was dominion, the posture of a regional hegemon asserting its primacy.
The international response only confirmed Israel’s diplomatic insulation. While China and Russia issued routine condemnations, the United States offered tepid criticism and privately welcomed the degradation of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. European powers urged “restraint from all sides,” which, in effect, offered tacit approval of Israel’s actions. Even traditional backers of Iran, like Turkey and Qatar, limited themselves to rhetorical protest, unwilling to directly challenge Israel’s growing power.
Most telling, however, was muted reactions from Arab capitals. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt – once reliable critics of Israeli military aggression – remained notably restrained. Their caution reflected a deeper geopolitical shift in the region, with many Sunni Arab states increasingly disposed toward accommodation with Israel. The 2020 Abraham Accords – brokered by the first Trump administration – appear to have crystallized this shift. These agreements, which normalized relations between Israel and the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, did more than disrupt decades of Arab consensus linking normalization to Palestinian statehood. They established a tacit alliance architecture that isolated Iran, enhancing Israel’s ability to project power in the region.
The durability of this realignment became undeniable after October 2023, when the Abraham Accords’ signatories maintained diplomatic ties with Israel despite its devastating campaign in Gaza, which by some estimates has killed over 50,000 Palestinians. These agreements have afforded Israel not only diplomatic cover, but also intelligence-sharing partnerships, overflight rights, and economic integration – tools that have strengthened its strategic reach while shielding it from political fallout. Public anger has simmered in Arab streets, especially over what many view as Israel’s disproportionate and possibly genocidal campaign, using the pretext of seeking to destroy Hamas as cover for systemic ethnic cleansing. That Israel – a military power capable of flying fighter jets and precision munitions over 2,000 kilometers to strike hardened targets in Iran – has failed to dislodge Hamas militants barely 50 kilometers away in Gaza, has raised uncomfortable questions about its intent. Yet, despite the street rage, several Arab governments appear to prioritize Iran containment over Palestinian solidarity, thus insulating Israel from criticism over Gaza or Iran.
The current stand‑off with Iran represents only the latest escalation in Israel’s broader regional campaign. Since the Gaza war began, Israel has intensified its operations across multiple theaters. In April 2024, for example, it struck an Iranian consulate annex in Damascus killing 16 people, including seven IRGC officers and Brig. Gen. Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior Quds Force commander coordinating Iran’s activities in Syria and Lebanon. In July, Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’s political leader, was assassinated in an Israeli strike on an IRGC guesthouse in Tehran. In Lebanon, Israel launched a massive air campaign in September, culminating in the assassination of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and strikes that killed over 800 people and injured thousands, devastating Hezbollah’s leadership and infrastructure. In Yemen, Israeli air and naval forces have steadily degraded Iran-aligned Houthi infrastructure. And in the occupied West Bank, settlement expansion continues apace, accompanied by frequent strikes on Palestinian militants and infrastructure. These coordinated strikes are not the actions of a besieged state, but the prolonged strategy of a regional power reshaping the strategic map across its periphery.
The ongoing hot war with Iran shows no sign of abating. With stakes so high on both sides, neither appears willing to de-escalate. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has vowed “crushing retaliation” and ordered the acceleration of uranium enrichment to weapons-grade levels. Given that Iran’s underground and heavily fortified facilities at Fordow and Natanz likely sustained only partial damage, enrichment operations may well continue. Israel warns that any further nuclear advances would prompt “even more devastating” strikes. Yet its current arsenal may be insufficient to neutralize Iran’s deepest sites. To complete the job, Israel would likely require access to the U.S.’s Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs), which can only be deployed by American B‑2 bombers. So far, Washington has resisted requests for these. That leaves Israel facing a difficult choice: escalate the campaign and risk dragging the United States into a broader regional war, or pause prematurely and acknowledge that its strategic objectives remain incomplete.
Iran faces equally grim options. Its economy is strangled, proxies degraded, and domestic legitimacy fraying. A restrained response may signal weakness; a bolder counterstrike risks devastating retaliation and possible U.S. intervention. Yet a nuclear retreat seems inconceivable for Iranian hardliners. The country has paid too high a price: assassinated officers, slain scientists, ruined facilities, civilian collateral, and decades of economic siege – much of it inflicted by Israel with Western complicity. Few nations have paid a heavier toll in pursuit of nuclear capability. Had Tehran pursued a pragmatic, low-profile program, it might have reached the threshold with far less carnage. But too much pain and humiliation has accrued, entwining the program with regime survival and national pride. Iran will want vindication and honor for its fallen by finally attaining nuclear status.
Moreover, Israel’s nuclear hypocrisy deepens Iran’s resolve. An undeclared nuclear state outside the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Israel leads the charge against Iran – a signatory professing peaceful use. History, too, shapes Tehran’s view: Gaddafi was overthrown after disarming; Ukraine was invaded post-denuclearization; only defiant North Korea has endured. Iran is watching, and learning.
For all its tactical brilliance, Israel’s strike against Iran may unleash further regional instability. Saudi Arabia and Turkey may now pursue nuclear hedges. And in pursuing its goal of regional dominance, Israel has caused too much pain and devastation for peace to reign. If Cyrus the Great were today observing the behavior of those he once liberated, he might ask how they came to this dark turn. I will explore that question in Part 2.
