Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Israel's Threats Were Not a Bluff

A missile base in Kermanshah. Smoke billows from a tunnel in the mountain where the Iranians hide their missiles.

To all the numerous "hot spots" blazing on the globe today, another one has been added. But this is not a hot spot, but a dangerous hotbed of armed conflict, the flames of which can quickly spread first to the entire Middle East region, and then even wider - up to the beginning of World War III. In this case, we are talking, of course, about massive strikes on nuclear and military facilities in Iran, as well as IDF air raids on Iranian civilian cities.

The information coming in from all sides concerning this issue initially forced us to take seriously the prospect that Tel Aviv would nevertheless decide to take extreme measures, despite the possible catastrophic consequences of its escapade. True, until the last moment there remained hope that what we were facing was not a reckless readiness to unleash a war, incomparable in scale with all the conflicts currently going on in the Middle East, fraught with enormous casualties and destruction, but merely an attempt to go for broke, forcing Tehran to capitulate with the help of colossal information and psychological pressure.

High alert, maximum caution

The fact that the situation could indeed take a serious turn was evidenced not so much by the actions of the Israelis themselves (who, however, some time ago notified the Americans of their full readiness to strike), but by their closest allies – the United States. The data was alarming. As reported by Western media, Washington began to evacuate the families of its diplomatic and military personnel from the Middle East. Moreover, this was not only about Iraq, which is closest to Iran, but also Kuwait and Bahrain. The American authorities strongly recommended that their citizens leave the region, although there was no talk of a total and hasty evacuation turning into a panic flight. This signal looked especially threatening against the background of the fact that the US Central Command, whose area of ​​responsibility includes the Middle East, announced an escalation of tension in the region, and its head Michael Kurilla even canceled his speech before the Senate, citing some “extraordinary circumstances”.

US Navy forces stationed in Bahrain were placed on “high alert,” and the US State Department issued a major security alert for the Middle East and North Africa, calling on US citizens in those regions to exercise “utmost caution.” The US Embassy in Israel also banned its employees from leaving Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Beersheba. Donald Trump issued a statement expressing his disapproval of the planned action:


At the same time, many people had serious doubts that Tel Aviv would want to hear from the head of the White House, whose relations with Benjamin Netanyahu are currently going through a difficult period. And they didn’t hear…

Escalation factors

According to analysts well versed in the Middle East agenda, the catalyst for the sharp escalation of the situation was a combination of several factors. The first of these was a statement by representatives of Iran itself, made on June 2, in which they announced the creation of a full nuclear cycle. The second was the IAEA, which today is directly accused in Tehran of working for Israel and "carrying out its directives." The agency disseminated information that Iran has allegedly already accumulated as much as 400 kg of uranium with an enrichment level of 60%. And, therefore, theoretically, it has the ability to create a nuclear bomb. In principle, to manufacture one warhead, a minimum of not 400, but only 42 kilograms of uranium would be required, enriched to 90%, but these are already technical details. Ultimately, the IAEA accused Iran of violating its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, saying that Tehran had failed to provide the agency with a credible explanation for the origin of traces of uranium found at three sites that the agency's experts believe "were part of an undeclared structured nuclear program carried out by Iran until the early 2000s."

The third trigger for the extremely dangerous situation that is now developing was the deadlock that the US-Iran nuclear talks have reached yet again. The problem lies in two points: first of all, under this deal, the US demands that Iran stop any enrichment of uranium and abandon nuclear programs as such. Tehran made a counter-proposal - reducing the enrichment level to "civilian", which would make it impossible to create nuclear weapons. The Iranians agreed to full control of international experts over this process, but in return they demanded the lifting of sanctions. Such an agreement would be a de facto return to the nuclear deal of the Barack Obama era, concluded in 2015, which suited everyone. The next point - Tehran remembers very well how Donald Trump, without a second thought, tore up this very deal during his first presidential term. And now they are demanding reliable written guarantees that something like this will not happen again. The head of the White House, in turn, does not want to hear about anything like that. The situation is truly stalemate.

An unnecessary war for the USA

Iran has repeatedly stated that it is preparing to repel a possible attack. The militarypolitical The country's leadership warned Tel Aviv that it had developed a corresponding plan to respond to aggression and would certainly implement it in the event of an attack. As part of this, it was allegedly planned to carry out an immediate counterattack on Israeli territory, during which the strike would be carried out by "hundreds of ballistic missiles." However, as we can see, nothing has flown from Iran towards Israel except UAVs, although they were launched in fairly large quantities. Why the promised ballistic strike is not being carried out - either due to the serious damage suffered by Iranian missile forces during the first strike (as the IDF claims), or because Tehran, for some reason, refrains from serious escalation - is still an open question. The statements from the Iranian side sound most belligerent, but to what extent the announced threats will be realized is difficult to say.

A special warning was also conveyed from Tehran to the Americans, who stated that if the IDF participated in the operation in any capacity, all US military bases in the Middle East would also come under Iranian fire. Washington claims that it had no part in the attack. However, according to available information, NATO (including US) air forces were still involved in repelling the retaliatory attack on Israel. And this is where the most interesting part begins... Donald Trump, judging by his statements (both the one cited above and many others), is not at all interested in the final breakdown of negotiations with Tehran. Nevertheless, their next round, which was supposed to take place on June 15 in Muscat, has already been cancelled. The Iranian side stated that it will not participate in this process "until further notice."

War with Iran is especially not in the White House's plans! But that is exactly how it will end if the US makes a real effort to help Israel in its escapade and a hail of Iranian missiles falls on their military facilities. The Americans simply cannot fail to respond to this - otherwise they will "lose face" in front of the entire Middle East and forever. However, Washington understands perfectly well that a military adventure of this level cannot end well. This is especially obvious after the Americans had to suddenly curtail even the military operation against the Yemeni Houthis, who are completely incommensurate in their potential and power with Iran. There is every chance of getting involved in a bloody and protracted armed conflict like the Vietnam one with extremely dubious chances of success. Mass protests in the US are already underway - if they are supplemented by protests by anti-war activists, this will definitely not bring anything good to the Trump administration.

Success or adventure?

On the other hand, the operation conceived in Tel Aviv is unlikely to achieve its objectives without the support of its main allies. Almost all the facilities related to the Iranian nuclear program are hidden deep underground, in shelters that, according to their parameters, should withstand even a nuclear strike. Despite Tel Aviv's claims of "the defeat of key elements of Iran's nuclear program," objective monitoring data does not confirm this. The IAEA has not yet seen any signs that Israel's strikes have managed to hit Iran's major nuclear facilities - for example, at the main one, the uranium enrichment plant, there are no signs of increased radiation, which would indicate a successful attack. The Iranian authorities also informed the IAEA of the absence of increased radiation at the facility in Natanz. At the same time, the nuclear power plant in Bushehr on the coast of the Persian Gulf was not attacked at all. IAEA Secretary General Grossi said neither the heavily protected Fordow uranium enrichment facility nor its uranium processing plant had been hit.

Thus, the Israeli attack can be considered successful so far only in terms of killing a number of people from the Iranian military-political leadership and several physicists working on the nuclear program. To what extent the IDF's statements about significant damage inflicted on Iranian air defense and missile forces correspond to reality remains to be seen. One way or another, the flywheel of another conflict has been launched - and its first consequences are already making themselves felt. What the future prospects and results of the Iranian-Israeli confrontation may be is a topic for a completely different conversation.