Tensions between Israel and Iran have once again erupted into open confrontation. In the early hours of June 13, 2025, Israel launched a powerful and unprecedented strike against Iranian nuclear and military targets, reportedly killing high-ranking Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders and scientists at the heart of Iran’s controversial nuclear program. As drones and missiles were exchanged in retaliation, the world held its breath—fearing that the region could be on the brink of a catastrophic war. However, behind the spectacle of missile launches and battlefield casualties, a deeper and more dangerous risk is now emerging: the very real possibility that these strikes will drive Iran to become a nuclear-armed state, dramatically altering the balance of power in the Middle East.
Israel’s Calculated Gamble
Israel has long viewed Iran’s nuclear ambitions as an existential threat. Despite repeated international negotiations and pressure campaigns, Tehran’s nuclear program has advanced steadily over the years. For Israeli policymakers, the shadow of a nuclear-armed Iran is intolerable—spurring periodic acts of sabotage, targeted assassinations, and now, direct military attacks on Iranian soil. The stated goal of these operations is clear: to delay, disrupt, or ideally destroy Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons.
Yet, as Foreign Affairs argues, this approach is fraught with peril. Every Israeli military action may, paradoxically, push Iran closer to the very outcome Israel fears most. Convinced that only a nuclear deterrent can protect it from future attacks, Iran may respond by abandoning its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), accelerating uranium enrichment, and breaking decisively toward weaponization.
Escalation and the Nuclear Tipping Point
The June 2025 operation is just the latest in a long series of escalations. Iran’s immediate response—launching over a hundred drones and vowing further retaliation—underscores the limits of Israel’s strategy. Militarily, Iran remains outgunned by Israel and the United States, but it possesses potent asymmetric tools: proxy militias, missile arsenals, and the ability to disrupt global oil flows. More ominously, Iran’s nuclear program has recently taken on new urgency and secrecy. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirmed the existence of a third undisclosed enrichment site and persistent breaches of international monitoring protocols.
The Foreign Affairs article warns that Israel’s strikes are likely to be counterproductive in the long term. Each attack reduces Iran’s incentive to cooperate with international monitors and raises the domestic political costs for Iranian leaders to negotiate or compromise. The more threatened Tehran feels, the more likely it is to cross the nuclear threshold as an ultimate guarantee of regime survival. This creates a vicious cycle: Israeli action begets Iranian defiance, which then prompts further Israeli strikes, edging both sides closer to an uncontrollable escalation.
The High Stakes of Nuclear Breakout
If Iran were to openly pursue nuclear weapons, it would mark a watershed moment for Middle Eastern security. Both Israel and the United States would face the daunting prospect of containing a nuclear-armed Iran—a scenario that carries grave risks. Nuclear proliferation could sweep across the Gulf as Saudi Arabia and other states scramble for their own deterrents. The threat of nuclear terrorism and accidental launches would rise sharply. Diplomatic options would narrow, and any future crisis could escalate with little warning into a nuclear exchange.
Moreover, the global economic impact would be profound. The June 2025 attacks already triggered a spike in oil prices as traders feared disruptions to critical supply routes. A nuclearized Iran would wield even greater leverage over the world’s energy markets, heightening volatility and economic uncertainty.
The Diplomatic Dilemma
Despite the ominous trends, there are still pathways to avoid disaster. As Foreign Affairs points out, the history of nuclear diplomacy—from the U.S.-Soviet Cold War standoff to the Iran nuclear deal of 2015—demonstrates that adversaries can be deterred and agreements can hold if both sides have credible incentives and mutual interests. The challenge is to re-engage Iran diplomatically, even as tensions flare, and to reassure Israeli leaders that security can be maintained without perpetual pre-emptive warfare.
This will not be easy. Both sides have suffered casualties and political wounds. Hardliners in Tehran and Jerusalem will argue against compromise. But the stakes—preventing a nuclear arms race and preserving regional stability—demand creative, sustained diplomacy backed by credible deterrence.
The Path Ahead
The real threat from Iran is not simply the existence of a nuclear program or the outbreak of direct hostilities. It is the risk that cycles of violence and mistrust will push the region past the nuclear tipping point, setting in motion a chain of consequences that no side can control. Israel’s latest attacks, while dramatic and decisive, may ultimately prove counterproductive if they convince Tehran that only nuclear weapons can ensure its survival. The international community now faces an urgent task: to halt the march toward nuclear confrontation and find a way back to dialogue before the opportunity slips away forever.
About The Author
