Israel Attacked Iran. What Happens Now?
A Q&A about last night
What Happened?
This is a webzone, not a newspaper. The AP has a solid write-up. The short version is that in the wee hours of June 13 local time, Israel attacked Iran with Operation Rising Lion, a bold series of airstrikes. They targeted nuclear facilities, ballistic missile production, and Iranian military leadership (including in residential buildings in Tehran.) Netanyahu issued a very slickly-produced statement explaining that Israel takes Iran’s oft-repeated threat of “Death to Israel” seriously, and will not allow Iran to achieve the means to accomplish it.
So. Now what? Well, I’ve got 3,000 words of takes organized in a Q&A:
How serious is this? Don’t Israel and Iran bomb each other all the time?
Really serious. Putting my cards on the table with some predictions:
80% chance this spirals into a declared or de facto state of war between Israel and Iran
40% chance this spirals into a total or near-total war between Israel and Iran
30% chance the Islamic Republic loses control of significant amounts of territory, most likely from being overthrown or a civil war, in the next 5 years
65% chance the Islamic Republic loses control of significant amounts of territory, most likely from being overthrown or a civil war, in the next 10 years
5% chance this war leads directly to the largest war since World War 2
20% chance this war is seen as the prelude to the largest war since World War 2 (akin to the Italian invasion of Ethiopia)
95% chance this is the most serious threat to the Iranian regime since it was invaded by Iraq
The missile exchanges of 2024 were saber rattling. This is not that. In October ‘24 Israel attacked 20 Iranian military positions, killing 5. Operation Rising Lion hit over 100 positions, including many in the nation’s capital, killing 90. This is an act of war in all but name.
Why did Israel attack? What’s their goal?
There are a few main possibilities here, and each raises a huge question:
Operation Rising Lion is the prelude to a full-scale war, with Israel trying to destroy Iran’s military and force them into a state of surrender. (How does Israel intend to do this with its military limitations? Why would it start a war that would be so costly when cheaper, more targeted strikes are available?)
Operation Rising Lion is the prelude to an extended bombing campaign to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. (How would they manage that without direct U.S. support? Or do they believe the U.S. will step in?)
Operation Rising Lion is to demonstrate their ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities without direct US support. (Well, were they actually effective?)
Operation Rising Lion is a negotiating strategy to try and force the Iranians to make a disadvantageous deal, such as shuttering their nuclear program. (Why do Jerusalem/Washington think this would work? Will it?)
In any case, this exchange is just the beginning. I guess it's still possible that it doesn’t become war, but that’s looking less and less likely. Israel almost certainly doesn’t want an extended war, their high-end military ain’t cheap and they’ve burned tons of ammo already against Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, Syria…
Operation Rising Lion was notably not a hellstorm of endless destruction, but targeted attacks on nuclear and missile infrastructure plus leadership. When the IDF isn’t bombing Gaza, City of 2 Million Human Shields, their strikes are highly precise.
If war does break out, Israel will have difficulty meeting its goals without active U.S. support. I doubt they have all the nuclear site locations, they need U.S. satellite intelligence for that. Rubio says the Israelis did this without US satellite info, but who knows if that’s true.
Israel would also need help with aerial refueling and use of U.S.-controlled airspace. So without US support, they’re more limited in both munitions and targets.
What is Iran’s response?
Iran is in a weak position. They have good reasons both to escalate and not to—but matching Israel’s strike effectiveness would itself be an escalation, since Iran is just not on the same level of military tech.
Iran must retaliate, and both Israel and the US understand this. What that retaliation looks like though is key. If the US thinks it's excessive, it could harm the talks.
The regime wants to survive. So there’s a good chance they’ll pursue whatever course of action they judge most likely to lead to survival.
The regime's been backed into a corner. Hezbollah and Hamas have been dismantled, Assad is gone, their posture in the region is crumbling. The regime itself is barely holding on with worse and worse civil unrest each passing year.
They’re desperate enough to do something really, really stupid. They might gamble that their only hope is a military miracle—waging an all-out war. If they lose, they go down in a blaze of glory fighting the holy war.
What will the war look like?
Israel will likely continue its current strategy: air strikes on military infrastructure and command figures.
There could be limited ground operations—special forces cells conducting sabotage inside Iran—but not full-scale infantry combat. Neither side can occupy the other’s territory.
There may increased piracy as well, if the Iranians use the Houthis more boldly. Besides that, I don’t expect much fighting at sea.
I’ve seen some people online calling Rising Lion a “decapitation strike”. We’re nowhere close to that yet. Yes, they killed several top Revolutionary Guard figures, including the commander (Soleimani’s replacement) and the head of the missile command1. But Iran is a huge country. Leadership positions have already been refilled.
To put it in perspective: imagine if the U.S. lost the Marine Corps Commandant, his third-in-command, the Deputy Commandant for Aviation, the U.S. Army Chief of Staff, and a former National Nuclear Security Administration head. That would of course be very bad —but the US would survive. So will Iran.
What about the nuclear threat?
Iran's messaging could be best summed up as: "It is our holy mission to annihilate Israel and to kill all Israelis and we will stop at nothing to accomplish this goal. However, our nuclear program is purely for peaceful energy purposes. We totally aren't going to build a nuke, pinky promise."
Israel takes Iran’s threats seriously. So does the US, so do the UK and France, so do even Iran’s own allies Russia and China. None of them want Iran to have the bomb. Nobody does except for Iran’s simps.
Israel wants to keep this war limited. But like I said earlier, Iran may see this war as existential and escalate to a total war.
Iran is very close to having the bomb - nobody seems sure how close. If Iran launches its nuke at Israel, then Israel will launch their hundreds of nukes back—and destroy every major city in Iran. The Iranians would prefer that this not happen.
But that doesn't mean Iran won't retaliate violently. It all depends on whether or not Iran’s leaders choose to escalate.
So what comes after the war?
Iran is going to lose. And that loss will either directly or indirectly lead to a major crisis in Iran. If the Iranians think civil unrest is bad now, just wait until their nuclear ambitions are buried under rubble, their military has been defeated and humiliated, and half their leadership is dead. Public unrest (stoked by US intelligence) spikes while leadership is in disarray... who knows what could happen?
This collapse wouldn’t be overnight, but it can also happen in short order —not immediately, but with little prelude. They've had intensifying civil unrest for a decade now. Almost every new wave was bigger and more destructive than the last.
Israeli strikes alone can't kill the IR, but regimes can collapse fast. The 1953 coup took less than 8 months. The shah fell in less than a year, to the shock of everyone. Many Iranians who dream of seeing the IR gone will see this as a chance to finally get rid of the regime. They will also see it as a threat from Israel and the US towards their motherland. What they decide is more important is not something I’m equipped to say.
It’s entirely possible that Iran will end up like Syria—torn apart by competing factions vying for power. Either no single government rises after the IR collapses, or the IR only partially falls and the country fractures between rival militias. One would have US support, another Chinese support, the Saudis and the Israelis and the Islamists and the Russians… Iran would be torn apart. This horrific clusterfuck of a civil war could destabilize the entire region—maybe the entire world.
Less pessimistically, the new Iranian government can be par for the course for the region. That would be an Iran that focuses on domestic development and plays by the region’s rules— balancing power with the Saudis, at least somewhat conservative (and probably secular) leadership to suppress insurgencies instead of sponsoring them, and hopefully liberal enough to be a good place to live. This is Iran’s best chance to become not-shit again, and well within the population’s ability: Iran was both a liberal democracy and a conservative monarchy in living memory.
They can keep doing the ole Arab special: loudly denounce Israel, but quietly trade and cooperate. They don’t have to be friends. They just have to stop bankrolling Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, et al. So long as the oil keeps flowing, the planet will be better off.
Maybe we'll get the shah back. That would be whimsical.
Who should I root for in the war?
I think Israel is generally justified here.
Let me first say I admire the Iranian people and their culture, they truly are one of the great civilizations of human history, and even more impressive that they're still around. I take issue with the authoritarian tyrannical government that rules them against their will.
Netanyahu’s statement does a good job outlining the very real threats to Israel’s security that Iran poses. Anyone who says otherwise is not in good faith. They chant “Death to America, Death to Israel.” There is simply no reason anyone should support Iran unless that’s also what they want.
I have no idea why so many people online "uwuify" Iran specifically. From the depths of Twitter to the Biden White House, Iran’s simps are everywhere in the Democratic Party. I presume this is born from a combination of guilt for the 1953 coup and disdain for Bush-era neoconservatism. And sure, sometimes their badness is overstated, and the West is hardly perfect, and our own foreign policy towards Iran was often belligerent. Plus this is our own damn fault, after all, it was our coup that led to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
But none of that changes the truth: The Islamic Republic of Iran makes a serious case for being the most net negative government in the world. Its actions don’t just harm its population and its neighbors, but the whole planet. They literally bankroll the Houthis, a militant group that does nothing all day but make global shipping more dangerous and expensive. Iran is the main and sometimes the sole reason most of those insurgencies still exist or are relevant.
Iran is a pariah state, one of the most violently repressive regimes in the world, and the supporter of insurgents and terrorists across the entire Middle East. If the regime could be removed without cost, it would benefit almost everyone. That includes 90% of Iranians.2
This is what happens when people conclude that every government is equally bad and every state’s “rights” must be respected—no matter how horrific they are to their neighbors or their own people.
Israel isn’t perfect, and neither is the US. But anyone who isn’t a government official in an authoritarian regime should stand against Iran.3
What’s the U.S. involvement and response?
The US claims they had no involvement with Rising Lion. This is probably a lie, or maybe a creative definition of “involvement”.
Seems like Israel had access to some very good intel! They probably used American-controlled airspace in Iraq, and maybe even U.S. refueling to keep planes flying. The US sold Israel the F-35s and JDAMs they used to strike Iran. The US is involved.
I would wager it's very popular within the US government actually. Nobody is more acutely aware of the threat of Iran than national security professionals.
But for political reasons, they can't overtly support it.
The U.S. also openly approved of the strikes, and tacitly assisted in them, but won’t say so publicly. The reason for public silence is dismally simple: it would be unpopular and hurt Trump’s approval ratings.
Trump’s been selling himself to his voters as the guy who keeps the US out of wars. He just spent the last 5 years bragging about how he didn't start any wars and the world was peaceful and stable under him compared to Biden. And when it was popular to hit Iran, he hit Iran.
I assume most Americans will support Israel. But a lot of people are tuned out. For maybe 50% of Americans, the Israel/Palestine conflict blends into “uhhhh it sounds like a mess! The Middle East sure is fucked up.”
In 2022, about 100 million Americans realized they had an opinion on Ukraine. When supporting Ukraine was popular, the US did it eagerly and generously. When it wasn’t, US support became tepid and moody. Israel and Iran both know this.
The US has another concern: our forces near Iran’s border are exposed. They’re right next to the Iranian border, much closer than Israel, and have a fraction of the missile defense cover. Without Hezbollah, Iran is limited in missile strikes on Israel – so they could target US forces instead.
Of course, if Iran does this, the US is obligated to respond. I would expect this White House to take a de-escalatory posture, unless the Iranian attack is damaging enough to outrage the public. Americans hate hate HATE seeing dead American soldiers, it’s cost us 3 wars in a row4. So once again, the ball is in Iran’s court.
What about the negotiations between the US and Iran?
The most likely outcome from the talks was for a deal similar to the JCPOA, the Iran deal Obama negotiated that Trump 45 pulled out of.
This is a temporary stopgap. So long as Iran is hostile and chasing nukes, war is inevitable. As Machiavelli said, wars can’t be prevented—only postponed.
Iran may be willing to sign deals they weren’t in the past because it’s clear the US could help Israel destroy their nuclear program. In fact it’d probably be easy to do if the US was actively participating.
Trump will most likely spin this as an intentional negotiating strategy, Israel is the stick and the US is the carrot. I have no idea how true that is, but it makes him look smart without obligating him to do anything.
But I think what’s more likely is that there’s some truth to the “growing rift” between Washington and Jerusalem. The strongest pro-Israel element in Trump’s first administration, Jared Kushner, is gone. He’s been replaced with isolationists like Stephen Miller.
Other than fearing a hit to his approval rating, Trump is still clinging to the fantasy of “making a deal”. The Israelis felt it was time to act, and Washington said "we want to try negotiating a little longer" and Jerusalem said, "no, it has to be now, we’re doing it with or without you.” Hence the tepidity of US support.
If Iran's response is "k we're gonna keep rushing the bomb tho," then the US is obligated to respond.
Diplomacy cannot solve this impasse. Iran’s red line is “we want nukes.” The U.S. and Israel’s is “you can’t have them.” Reality can’t accommodate both of these preferences. Israel and the U.S. are in a stronger position and won’t budge. Iran is weaker, but also irrational—it’s a theocracy. The regime may also not survive budging.
In any case, Iran will want to buy time by dragging out talks for as long as possible. Once talks break down, active US support for Israel's attacks becomes way more likely.
What about other countries? Saudi Arabia? Russia? China? Could this spiral into World War 3?
High risk, high reward for the Saudis. The Iranians are a huge threat to them: Iran’s military would pwn the Saudis, and it would be easy for Iran to destroy or capture the Saudi oil fields. The Saudis have poured insane money into solving this problem, and they have not succeeded. Unless they can secure a defense pact with a country more powerful than Iran, they will always be vulnerable.
In other words, the Saudis would very much like to see a different regime in Tehran. But what’s worse than current Iran would be an Iran that descends into bloody anarchy. That would be a Yemen-type headache times 20. It's not good for your country to have a civil war–torn failed state as a neighbor.
Russia and China are Iran’s only meaningful allies. Russia’s tied up in a war of attrition with Ukraine, so their aid will be limited. China could help, but probably won’t want to. They don’t care who’s in power in Tehran so long as 1) oil keeps flowing and 2) the regime isn’t too friendly to Washington. Plus, it’d provoke the US enough for Washington to escalate tensions.
Remember, our enemies are evil. There is no love or loyalty in that friendship, it’s a mercenary alliance of convenience. Putin is Orthodox and Xi is an atheist, and both have internal issues with radical Islam. They’ll help from the sidelines only for now.
It is possible that this war sucks in more and more countries and snowballs into World War III. At this time, I find that highly unlikely. But far more likely than it was on Tuesday.
In the process avenging Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752. In 2020, Iran shot down a Ukrainian passenger jet by mistake, and then lied about it until their guilt was undeniable. Y’know, like a bad actor would.
Unfortunately, we cannot remove the regime without cost. Nor can we accurately determine the cost until we have to pay it.
It is a real Comcast/Verizon situation some days though, I’ll tell ya…
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Gulf War doesn’t count, it was a real war but not a major war.