Israel’s strike on Iran raises strategic stakes — but leaves big questions unanswered

The Israeli airstrikes that killed senior Iranian military leaders and disrupted the country’s nuclear program have triggered more than just regional anxiety — they’ve raised urgent global questions about the future of deterrence, diplomacy, and legitimacy.

Framed by Israeli officials as a defensive operation to prevent Iran from weaponizing its enriched uranium stockpile, the attack is better described as a preventive strike — an action taken not in response to an imminent threat, but to counter a future possibility. In doing so, Israel didn’t just target Tehran’s capabilities; it rewrote the script for what counts as acceptable use of military force.

That shift has global implications. Because once a state legitimizes force based on intentions, rather than actions, the door opens to a world where trust collapses and every rivalry becomes a countdown.

While the Biden administration was quick to claim that Israel acted unilaterally, multiple reports suggest the US was briefed ahead of time — and crucially, chose not to block the operation. This marks a significant shift in American posture. In years past, Washington pushed back on Israeli efforts to unilaterally strike Iranian sites, fearing regional destabilization. This time, it gave no such signal.

Why the change? One possibility is that Washington sees strategic utility in letting Israel act as the regional enforcer — a counterweight to Iran’s influence without direct US entanglement. Another is that American leverage over Israeli decision-making has eroded, particularly in an election year where both Trump and Biden are wary of appearing weak on national security.

But distancing after the fact — as US officials have done by warning Iran not to retaliate against American personnel — doesn’t absolve responsibility. It only adds to the perception that US foreign policy is increasingly driven by short-term optics rather than long-term strategy.

It’s no coincidence that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu greenlit this operation at a moment when his government is under intense domestic strain. The war in Gaza continues to divide public opinion. The judicial overhaul crisis has polarized the electorate. Secular-religious tensions remain unresolved. But there is one issue that unites most Israelis: the belief that Iran’s nuclear ambitions pose an existential threat.

By striking Iran now, Netanyahu shifts attention outward. He also sends a clear message to critics — at home and abroad — that Israel retains the initiative in determining its own security red lines. Yet this display of strength may come at a strategic cost. Iran, already isolated, now has every incentive to reconstitute its nuclear program underground, faster, and with even fewer constraints.

In other words: the strike might delay progress, but it could also entrench it.

Iran’s response so far has been restrained by its standards: waves of drones and missile strikes, most of which Israel intercepted. But the bigger question is whether this is merely the first salvo. Tehran may look for asymmetric ways to retaliate — through proxy groups, cyberattacks, or targeting Israeli assets abroad. A more extreme scenario would involve disrupting oil flows through the Strait of Hormuz or targeting Gulf infrastructure, a move that would upend energy markets and punish the West economically.

The calculus in Tehran is complicated. Retaliate too lightly, and it risks looking weak. Escalate too far, and it risks inviting broader confrontation. Either way, Iran’s vulnerability has been laid bare — and that in itself may shape the next phase of the conflict.

Complicating matters further is the uncertain future of diplomacy. With the nuclear deal moribund and trust at an all-time low, any path back to negotiations now looks remote. Trump has called for talks, but from Tehran’s perspective, recent events confirm that promises mean little when military action is always on the table.

Israel’s strike may have succeeded in the narrow sense of disruption, but it carries long-term costs that go beyond Iran’s nuclear file. It signals that preventive war — once viewed with deep skepticism — is now on the menu for countries that feel threatened. That precedent will not be lost on others: North Korea, India, Pakistan, even China could all cite this logic in the future.

At a time when global norms are already under pressure, this is a dangerous shift. The rules that govern international conflict are meant to prevent not just war, but miscalculation. When those rules are blurred, the risk is not just escalation — it’s chaos.

The real test now isn’t whether Iran rebuilds. It’s whether the world responds to this strike with strategic clarity or sleepwalks into a new era of military normalization — one where power replaces principle, and preemption becomes policy.