Experts warn Israel-Iran war outcome uncertain despite US involvement and Fordow claims
TOI-Online Former US, NATO rank holders and intelligence heads claim that even with US involvement in Israel's war with Iran, Iran stands on firm ground and has more stability amid predictions asserting a destabilized Iran
Experts warn Israel-Iran war outcome uncertain despite US involvement and Fordow claims
Amid recent statements from US President Donald Trump on June 22, claiming the successful destruction of Iran's Fordow nuclear facility, experts are expressing doubts that American involvement will secure Israel's broader strategic objectives in its ongoing conflict with Iran.
Israel's campaign against Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs has escalated in recent weeks, with growing speculation that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu aimed to draw in the United States. However, military analysts, security experts, and former diplomats caution that even with US military assistance, Israel's objectives, reportedly including regime change in Tehran, may not be achievable and could lead to regional destabilization.
Also read: US forces bomb Iranian nuclear sites; 'Fordow is gone' says Trump
Strategic goals in doubt despite targeted strikes While Israel may have achieved operational success in striking specific Iranian targets, experts argue that these actions are unlikely to result in long-term strategic outcomes. Concerns persist about Israel's capacity to maintain a prolonged aerial campaign, particularly in the face of potential Iranian retaliation. 'There is a dominant trend in Israel going back to the formation of the state that has suggested to politicians that violence will deliver a solution to what are political problems,' said Toby Dodge, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. 'My gut feeling is Iranian regime is more stable than has been suggested.'
Analysts also point to Iran's decentralized defense system, which mirrors Hezbollah's network and complicates efforts to degrade its capabilities through conventional airpower.
Fordow strike claim raises risk of escalation
Trump's assertion that the Fordow facility, buried beneath nearly 90 meters of rock, has been destroyed remains unverified. Military specialists question whether US bunker-busting bombs could successfully penetrate the site and warn that such action could trigger retaliation against American assets.
Also read: Steve Bannon's backroom role? Secret talks with Trump raise questions about U.S Iran strike strategy
'Subcontracting the Fordow job would put the United States in Iran's sights,' wrote former US Ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer and former National Security Council official Steven N. Simon in Foreign Affairs . 'Iran would almost certainly retaliate by killing American civilians.' Experts note that escalation following such retaliation could draw the US into regime-change operations, a strategy unpopular among the American public.
Operational momentum risks undermining strategy Questions have been raised about the coherence of Israel's approach, which appears heavily reliant on airpower with limited capacity for sustained conflict. Resource constraints, including fatigue among air crews, missile interceptor shortages, and aircraft maintenance cycles, may inhibit Israel's ability to continue high-tempo operations.Andreas Krieg, associate professor at King's College London's Department of Defence Studies, said, 'We'd learned the lesson that air power alone doesn't work. And then we learned in Iraq and Afghanistan that even massive numbers of boots on ground doesn't work.'Krieg also emphasized that Iran's command structure is designed to withstand decapitation efforts. 'You can take out key nodes, but the best [Israel] can hope for in killing Khamenei would be to trigger the succession crisis which in any case had been anticipated,' he said.
Also read: Trick or TACO? Why has Trump set a 2-week deadline for Iran? Netanyahu's assumption that Trump would commit US forces to the campaign may also be politically flawed, particularly given low public support for intervention and growing divisions within Trump's base.In the absence of deeper US involvement, and with indirect talks between Iran and European countries underway in Geneva, analysts believe diplomatic avenues may still hold. Former NATO commander Wesley Clark has described successful air campaigns, such as Kosovo in 1999, as tools to bring adversaries to the negotiating table, not to achieve regime change.'If Khamenei has the sense to step back, if America doesn't come in,' said Dodge, 'then Israel has stuck its finger in a hornets' nest.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
22 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran FM Araghchi issues warning to Trump after U.S. strikes on nuclear sites
Published on Jun 22, 2025 07:16 PM IST Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi delivered a fiery address condemning the U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear sites, calling the strikes 'outrageous' and warning of 'everlasting consequences' for American actions. Araghchi accused the U.S. of violating international law and the UN Charter, asserting Iran's right to defend its sovereignty by all means necessary. The speech came after President Trump announced successful strikes on the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities. Watch for more
Scroll.in
26 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
How the Israel-Iran conflict could impact India
On June 13, the Israeli military began striking what it claimed were nuclear targets and other sites in Iran, with the aim of stalling Tehran's nuclear programme. Iran retaliated with missile attacks on Israel. The official toll in Iran is at least 430 so far, while at least 25 persons have died in Israel. The continued exchange of fire has led to concerns of a wider regional conflict that the United States could get drawn into. Washington is an ally of Israel and acts as a guarantor of the country's security. Tehran has rejected US President Donald Trump's demand for an ' unconditional surrender ' and vowed to fight back. The prevailing uncertainty has led to a spike in global oil prices. The price of benchmark Brent crude had jumped to $78 per barrel by Thursday from $69 per barrel on June 12, the day before the conflict began. But the spike was not because of Israeli military's strikes reportedly on the Shahran oil depot in Tehran and one of Iran's largest refineries in Shahr Rey. These actions have little impact on Iranian energy exports. Instead, the spike in prices primarily stem from concerns about the possible blocking of the Strait of Hormuz amid the conflict. The closure could threaten global energy security. The chokepoint The Strait of Hormuz is a narrow waterbody that connects the Gulf to the Arabian Sea. In 2024, an average 20 million barrels of oil was transported through the strait every day. That was about one-fifth of global petroleum liquids consumption. This makes the Strait of Hormuz one of the most strategically important chokepoints. Iran has in the past threatened to block the waterbody in retaliation to pressure from the West. On Sunday, the Iranian Parliament decided that the Strait of Hormuz should be closed, state-run Press TV quoted lawmaker Major General Kowsari as saying. The final decision will be taken by the Supreme National Security Council, the member of the parliamentary national security commission added. Unlike other chokepoints such as the Suez Canal or the Strait of Malacca, there is no practical alternative for fuel supplies to bypass the Strait of Hormuz in large volumes. Cargo ships are already sailing closer to the Omani coast and have been advised by maritime agencies and governments to avoid Iranian waters in the Strait of Hormuz, Reuters reported on Wednesday. An attempt to shutter the strait will not go unchallenged because of the regional powers' strategic interest in keeping fuel supply open. But the ensuing military confrontation may still disrupt supplies to some extent. India's interest When Tel Aviv and Tehran last exchanged missile fire in October, former Indian diplomat Navdeep Suri had told Scroll that if the conflict escalated and became an all-out war, Iran, feeling threatened, had the capacity to block the Strait of Hormuz. In that case, New Delhi will be staring at a scenario that will 'directly impact India's energy security', he had said. 'A very large chunk of India's energy supplies come from there and that could really be serious for us,' explained Suri, who served as India's ambassador to the United Arab Emirates. 'It's in our interest that it doesn't get out of hand.' India consumes 5.5 million barrels of crude per day for refining. Of this, 1.5 million barrels come through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Union Petroleum Minister Hardeep Singh Puri. If the strait gets blocked, Amena Bakr, the head of Middle East and OPEC+ insights at analytics firm Kpler, told CNBC International on June 13 that oil prices could jump to three-digits. To put the impact of such a scenario into context: a spike of every $10 per barrel drives up inflation in India by about 0.5%, financial services company Morgan Stanley had estimated in April 2024. But Puri told NDTV that closing the strait was not in Iran's own interest. Yet, he said, India remained comfortably placed to meet its fuel needs, adding that New Delhi can tap into alternative supplies if needed. Here is a summary of the week's other top stories. Countering Trump's claims. Prime Minister Narendra Modi told United States President Donald Trump that India will never accept mediation to resolve tensions with Pakistan. The topic came up during a phone call when Trump asked for the details about India's military strikes – codenamed Operation Sindoor – on Pakistan in May, said Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri. Trump was told that India had agreed to the ceasefire only on Islamabad's request, said Misri. The 'halt to military action was directly between India and Pakistan', the foreign secretary quoted Modi as having reiterated. The call between the two leaders came against the backdrop of the US president repeatedly claiming that he helped settle the tensions between India and Pakistan. New Delhi has rejected Trump's assertions. , writes Rohan Venkataramakrishnan A thaw in relations. India and Canada agreed to reinstate high commissioners in each other's capitals. This was announced after Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Canadian counterpart Mark Carney met on the sidelines of the Group of Seven summit. Other diplomatic steps 'to restore stability in the relationship' will 'follow in due course', said New Delhi. In October, New Delhi and Ottawa expelled several diplomats amid frosty bilateral relations. Ties between India and Canada strained in September 2023 after Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister at the time, told his country's Parliament that intelligence agencies were actively pursuing 'credible allegations' tying agents of the Indian government to the murder of Khalistani separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada. New Delhi has rejected Canada's allegations. The language debate. Opposition leaders criticised Union Home Minister Amit Shah for saying that those who speak English in India will soon feel ashamed. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said that English was 'not a barrier, but a bridge', adding that the language provides employment and boosts people's self-confidence. Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam MP Kanimozhi said to Shah that 'the only thing to be ashamed of is imposing your will on the people and trying to destroy the pluralism of India'. Shah's comment on Thursday came against the backdrop of several state governments and regional parties accusing the Union government of imposing Hindi through the National Education Policy's three-language formula. Also on Scroll this week for a curated selection of the news that matters throughout the day, and a round-up of major developments in India and around the world every evening. What you won't get: spam.
News18
27 minutes ago
- News18
Nobel Recommendation To Condemnation: How Iran Strikes Strain Pakistan's Ties With US
Last Updated: The country, which had recommended US President Donald Trump's name for the 2026 Nobel Peace prize on June 21, condemned the strikes on Tehran on June 22 The United States' strikes on the nuclear sites in Iran is a major diplomatic setback for Pakistan. The country, which had recommended US President Donald Trump's name for the 2026 Nobel Peace prize on June 21, condemned the strikes on Tehran on June 22. 'Pakistan condemns the US attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities which follow the series of attacks by Israel. We are gravely concerned at the possible further escalation of tensions in the region," said Pakistan's Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar in an official statement. — Ishaq Dar (@MIshaqDar50) June 22, 2025 WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 21? Pakistan lauded Trump for his role in negotiating the May 2025 India-Pakistan ceasefire, a move they believed demonstrated his commitment to peace. India has maintained that the US had no role in putting Operation Sindoor on halt and that the ceasefire was agreed upon based on Pakistan's request. Pakistan's Army Chief Asim Munir's White House meeting with Trump on June 18 also signalled closer ties. 'Pakistan's nomination of Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize was not just a symbolic gesture. It was a strategic effort to secure the U.S. support on key issues such as the Kashmir conflict and economic cooperation in emerging sectors like cryptocurrency and critical minerals," said intelligence sources. Analysts said Pakistan was also attempting to appeal to Trump's ego in the hope of dissuading him from taking aggressive action against Iran, thus maintaining regional stability and gaining leverage in their ongoing diplomatic efforts. WHAT HAPPENED ON JUNE 22? The U.S. strikes on June 22 have put Pakistan in a precarious position. The country, which shares a 900-km border with Iran, relies heavily on Tehran for trade, security, and the stability of its Shia community, which constitutes 15-20% of its population. The escalation threatens to destabilise Balochistan, a region already plagued by separatist movements, and could potentially embolden Sunni jihadist groups like Jaish al-Adl. While Tehran has refrained from publicly criticising Pakistan, the trust between the two neighbours is undoubtedly strained. Indian intelligence sources said Pakistan's diplomatic manoeuvre with the Nobel nomination was fraught with risks, given its significant dependence on Iran. The fallout from the U.S. strikes underscores Islamabad's limited influence in the broader U.S.-Iran conflict and highlights the fragility of its multi-alignment strategy. 'Moving forward, Pakistan faces the daunting task of balancing its relationships with both Tehran and Washington. This requires deft diplomacy to navigate an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, a challenge that appears near-impossible amid the current crises," said sources.
