Strategic Timing Behind Israel’s Strike on Iran
Israel's attack on Iran has targeted nuclear facilities and nuclear supply chain targets in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, and has killed a number of senior Iranian military leaders (and at least six nuclear scientists) including the head of the IRGC (revolutionary guard) the Chief of Staff of the formal (non-IRGC) armed forces, and the head of Iran’s Air Force.
(side note: Astonishing that after two days of notice that the whole world received of the incoming Israeli strikes - with U.S. evacuating personnel from the Middle East—that with all that warning of an imminent attack, a number of senior Iranian generals would still remain in ordinary residential buildings as opposed to reinforced bunkers. Pretty incompetent..)
Iran responded in less than a day with a barrage of ballistic missiles—only around 100 were launched, which is around half of the ones launched since the October response last year.
This either means Iran is carefully preserving its missiles (it has around 1,500-2,000 capable of reaching Israel) or Israel is successfully targeting launchers and making it harder for Iran to retaliate so quickly, especially with many of its senior commanders killed (or both).
(Side note: immediately after Israeli attacks, there were also drones launched at Israel—but these were launched way before ballistic missiles, giving ample time for Israelis to destroy these very easily one by one.. Had they been launched at a time to to arrive at the same time as ballistic missiles, one could have at least made a case that they were designed to overwhelm Israeli defenses. But the actual manner of their launch demonstrates a rather haphazard and reactive response - lashing out in a highly disorganized fashion—just a total waste of drones.)
Just like in October 2024, a number of ballistic missiles were successfully delivered into Tel Aviv.
But unlike October 2024, Iran wasn't focusing its targeting on military targets like air bases hosting F-35s, but on civilian targets too.
It was a rather indiscriminate barrage of ballistic missiles and there has been some destruction and devastation already
We will unpack all of these details as the dust settles, but it's important to not forget the primary question to date: why Israel chose this very moment in particular to strike.
Israel’s decision to launch its military campaign at this specific moment was no accident.
Strategically, it was a highly calculated move by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Several converging factors made this an opportune time to act.
1. International Legitimacy and Contextual Justification
The campaign began just one day after Iran was officially found to be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation requirements by the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
This provided Israel with the pretext of legitimacy to justify its actions—not only to its allies but also in broader international discourse.
It reinforced Israel’s longstanding claim that Iran was accelerating its nuclear program and that diplomatic efforts, particularly those involving the Trump administration, were serving merely as a stalling tactic to fulfill the regime's ultimate aim of weaponization .
2. Iran’s Moment of Maximum Vulnerability
Israel struck at a moment when Iran was at its weakest militarily and geopolitically in years:
Hezbollah has been largely neutralized;
Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria has collapsed;
The Houthis in Yemen have been significantly degraded by sustained airstrikes, with their recent attacks on Israel reduced to occasional symbolic launches—more nuisance than threat.
Most critically, Iran has been without meaningful air defenses since October 2024.
All four of its Russian-supplied S-300 systems—its most advanced air defense platforms—were either destroyed or rendered inoperable in previous operations.
This left Iranian skies effectively undefended, giving Israel a rare window for decisive action.
Compounding the urgency was the expectation that Iran would soon begin to recover.
If a nuclear deal with the U.S. were to be concluded, sanctions relief could flood the regime with billions of dollars.
These resources would almost certainly be directed toward rebuilding Iran’s missile forces, expanding its drone capabilities, and acquiring new air defense systems—potentially from China, whose technology has proven effective in recent regional conflicts, particularly in the India-Pakistan context.
In short, the clock was ticking. Israel judged that striking now would prevent Iran from rearming and gaining diplomatic leverage through renewed negotiations.
3. Undermining the Prospects of a U.S.-Iran Deal
A key objective for Netanyahu was to preempt the revival of a nuclear deal—what Israeli officials feared would be a “JCPOA-lite.”
Israeli policymakers were convinced that former President Trump, despite some public hardline rhetoric (e.g., calls for “zero enrichment”), would ultimately settle for a watered-down agreement with Tehran—an outcome viewed as wholly unacceptable to Israel.
The Israeli government believed such a deal would:
a. Legitimize Iran’s existing nuclear enrichment levels;
b. Offer economic relief to the regime;
c. Do nothing to prevent Iran from edging closer to a nuclear breakout capability.
Alternatively, in the absence of a deal, Iran could continue playing for time—using diplomacy as cover while preparing for possible Israeli military action.
Netanyahu’s strike, therefore, served as a way to force a “Plan B”—a no-deal scenario.
It also made any diplomatic overtures much harder to pursue.
Trump’s recent statement that these strikes might “help” bring about a deal is politically convenient but strategically implausible.
Talks scheduled for the upcoming Sunday in Oman have already been cancelled. With Iran reeling from attacks on key nuclear and military infrastructure—and suffering the assassination of senior regime figures—there is little political or strategic incentive for Tehran to negotiate with Washington under such circumstances.
Any negotiation now would be perceived internally as capitulation.
Public sentiment in Iran, already inflamed, would not permit the regime to return to talks from a weakened position.
If anything, any future negotiation would involve Iran demanding more, not less.
4. Domestic Political Calculus in the U.S, and countering MAGA influence in the White House
Netanyahu was also motivated by domestic developments within the United States.
A growing number of influential figures within Trump’s MAGA-aligned base—such as Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson—have grown openly hostile to Israel, accusing Netanyahu of dragging the U.S. into another Middle Eastern war.
Not without merit, these voices correctly see Netanyahu as leveraging American power to pursue Israeli security aims.
From Netanyahu’s perspective, these actors pose a growing threat to Israel’s longstanding bipartisan support in Washington.
With allies like Mike Waltz removed as a National Security Adviser, the number of Israel-aligned voices within a future Trump administration is shrinking.
If a deal with Iran were to proceed, isolationist arguments within MAGA circles—opposing U.S. involvement on Israel’s behalf—would gain even greater strength.
Netanyahu likely concluded that acting now, before these factions solidify influence, was crucial.
The current period—before the Trump team is fully reconstituted, before MAGA-aligned isolationists dominate its foreign policy, and before a deal can be finalized—offered the last, best chance to shape U.S. engagement.
And indeed, it looks like the gambit has paid off.
Just yesterday, it was uncertain whether the U.S. would help Israel protect Israeli airspace against Iranian missiles.
After all, Secretary of State Marco Rubio emphasized how Israel took a unilateral decision to attack Iran, that the U.S. was not part of it, and that U.S. interests in the region and assets should not be attacked.
There was warning against attacking Israel or promises to "protect" Israel.
But just today it was confirmed that U.S. sea and land-based systems were used to help Israel shoot down ballistic missiles.
5. Diverting Global Attention and Reasserting Western Alignment
The campaign also serves to shift global focus away from the war in Gaza. Just last week, U.S.-aligned countries such as Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand imposed sanctions on two senior Israeli cabinet members—Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir.
European condemnation of Israel has been intensifying.
France and Saudi Arabia are actively coordinating recognition of Palestinian statehood.
Against this backdrop, provoking an Iranian response—particularly one that threatens Tel Aviv or Western interests—helps reposition Israel as a bulwark of the Western alliance in the Middle East.
As Russia now vocally supports Iran, Israel can once again cast the conflict in binary terms: Israel, the U.S., and Europe versus Iran and Russia.
This framing is already being reinforced diplomatically and in media narratives.
6. A Potential Strategic Coup in the Arab World
Finally, Netanyahu may be playing for a far more ambitious regional outcome.
If Iran were to miscalculate and retaliate against U.S.-aligned Arab states—such as Qatar, the UAE, or Saudi Arabia—Israel could achieve a major geopolitical shift.
These are the very countries that have been inching toward normalization with Iran.
A direct Iranian attack would fracture those efforts, turning Arab populations and governments sharply against Tehran.
Such a development would be a foreign policy triumph for Israel:
It would realign Arab sentiment in Israel’s favor;
It would isolate Iran further in the region;
And it would reinforce the Abraham Accords framework by deepening Arab-Israeli strategic alignment.
That said, this remains a speculative scenario.
It would be deeply irrational for Iran to attack Arab countries at this moment.
More plausibly, Iran may retaliate against U.S. interests—such as military bases—or seek to disrupt global oil flows (and cause a spike in oil crude prices) by closing the Strait of Hormuz, thereby pressuring Washington to rein in Israel.
But the possibility of escalation remains, particularly if the regime perceives existential threats to its survival and lashes out indiscriminately.