Sayed Hossein Mousavian – Middle East Eye June 22, 2025

On Sunday, US President Donald Trump publicly announced: “The US military carried out massive precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.”

Following the attack, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that the use of force by the United States against Iran today is a dangerous escalation in a region already on the edge – and a direct threat to international peace and security.

On 13 June, Israel launched a series of coordinated air and cyber strikes targeting key Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure, killing several nuclear scientists and high level military commanders. In response, Iran retaliated with hundreds of missile and drone strikes against military and intelligence installations in Israel.

Israel’s main objective was not about Iran’s nuclear programme. Since the early 1990s, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly claimed each year that Iran would build a nuclear bomb within a year or two.

This has been a lie repeated for over 30 years. The truth is that by attacking Iran, Netanyahu’s main objective is to overthrow the government, create instability in the country, and turn Iran – like Syria, Lebanon, and Libya – into a failed state and then break it apart.

The consequences of US and Israeli military attacks will haunt the region, and beyond, for years to come. Here, I will highlight the key consequences of such an attack.

Netanyahu’s trap

There is no doubt that Israel coordinated its attack on Iran with the US, Europe, and Nato, and continued the war with their direct and indirect support. Netanyahu has been trying to drag the US into a war with Iran since the 1990s, but all US presidents avoided such a trap.

Under Netanyahu’s pressure, Trump killed the Iran nuclear deal, which was adopted by UN Security Council Resolution 2231, during his first term and launched a military strike against Iran’s nuclear sites just months into his second term.

Netanyahu praised Trump’s decision to attack Iran. “Congratulations, President Trump. Your bold decision to target Iran’s nuclear facilities with the awesome and righteous might of the United States will change history,” he said.

Ironically, the attack came after Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and Iranian Foriegn Minister Abbas Araghchi agreed that the first three rounds of nuclear talks in Oman and Italy could be a credible base for an agreement.

An informed Iranian source told me: “The key elements of the deal between Witkoff and Araghchi were agreed upon over three rounds of negotiations in Muscat and Rome. The deal was as follows: Iran would accept maximum nuclear inspections and transparency, including implementation of the Additional Protocol and Subsidiary Arrangements Code 3.1 – the highest international mechanisms for inspecting a country’s nuclear programme.”

The source added: “Second, Iran would convert or export its existing stockpile of 60-percent enriched uranium, which is sufficient to build 10 nuclear bombs. Third, Iran would halt its current high-level enrichment at 60 percent and 20 percent and reduce it to the level of civil purposes, which is 3.67 percent. Finally, Iran would fully cooperate with the IAEA to resolve all technical ambiguities.

“In return, the United States would lift the nuclear-related sanctions. It was agreed that the technical teams of both sides would draft the final agreement based on these four points. But suddenly, after a call between Netanyahu and Trump, the American side stopped sending its technical team to Muscat and, in a 180-degree shift in its position, demanded the complete shutdown of Iran’s peaceful enrichment programme.

“This shift delayed the agreement until Trump’s two-month deadline expired – and while the sixth round was set for day 63, Israel launched an attack on Iran on day 61. This was Israel’s trap – designed to drag the US and Trump into a war with Iran.”

Israel’s failure

Foreign ministers from Britain, France and Germany, as well as the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, Kaja Kallas, held talks with Araghchi on Friday and agreed to meet again within a week.

The E3/EU ministers were encouraged to meet the Iranian foreign minister because on 19 June, Trump gave a two-week window for diplomacy.

“Last week, we were in negotiations with the US when Israel decided to blow up that diplomacy. This week, we held talks with the E3/EU when the US decided to blow up that diplomacy. What conclusion would you draw?” Araghchi wrote to Britain and the EU High Representative.

The US decision to attack Iran shows that Israel not only failed in its 10-day military operation against Tehran, but was on the verge of defeat. Why would the US intervene if Israel had not been in a crisis?

Israel, the only country in the Middle East that actually possesses nuclear weapons, with as many as 400 nuclear bombs according to some estimates, cannot credibly claim to be fighting against nuclear proliferation.

Moreover, all reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and US intelligence agencies over the past 20 years have consistently confirmed that there is no evidence of the Iranian nuclear programme pursuing weaponisation.

“We do not have at this point, if you ask me, at this time, any tangible proof that there is a programme, or a plan, to fabricate, to manufacture a nuclear weapon,” said the UN nuclear chief.

The key point is that there was no immediate and serious threat. The claim that Iran has enough enriched stockpiles to build 10 bombs in two weeks is only half the truth.

The other half is that – even if Iran decided to build a bomb – it would take them one to two years to develop the delivery systems, such as nuclear warheads. “There was no imminent threat that Iran was weaponising its nuclear programme before Israel’s attack began,” according to the American Arms Control Association.

NPT: A political tool

This is the first time that two nuclear-armed countries have launched a military attack on a non-nuclear country.

This demonstrates that the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), specifically for the US and Israel, has merely been used as a political tool.

“Israel was not attacked by Iran – it started that war; the United States was not attacked by Iran – it started this confrontation at this point,” said Trita Parsi, the executive vice president of the Quincy Institute.

The US military attack on Iran is a clear violation of the UN Charter. “The United States, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, has committed a grave violation of the UN Charter, international law and the NPT by attacking Iran’s peaceful nuclear installations,” said the Iranian foriegn minister.

Trump’s national security team either failed to properly assess the consequences of a US military attack on Iran, or they were unable to dissuade Trump.

A new nuclear strategy

Netanyahu appearing before the UN General Assembly in 2012 to warn of the threat posed by Iran. Since then we’ve seen no hard evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons drive, although we’ve heard plenty more allegations. Click to enlarge

In any case, this event has further revealed the extent of Netanyahu’s influence over the White House.

“This war was provoked by Benjamin Netanyahu for his own political survival, and Donald Trump has willingly handed him American military power to prolong it. The United States is not anyone’s proxy army, and our troops are not bargaining chips,”  said Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman.

The prespective from Tehran is that the attacks by these two nuclear-armed countries revealed that the NPT not only has no real value, but is in fact harmful. Countries like North Korea, India, Pakistan and Israel, that rejected the treaty and developed nuclear weapons have remained immune from military attacks by nuclear weapons.

It is only natural that following the military attack by Israel and the United States, Iran would reconsider its nuclear strategy, including its continued membership in the NPT.

Iran has suffered irreparable damage, but the negative consequences of this attack are not limited to Iran alone – they will also harm the United States and jeopardise regional peace and security. The current war may have no clear winner or loser.

Instead, both Iran and Israel, along with the US, face the prospect of mutual destruction, regional destabilisation and long-term national trauma. In such a scenario, all parties would lose far more than they could ever gain.

The international community must act decisively to deescalate the situation. Failure to do so risks plunging the Middle East – and possibly beyond – into a catastrophic conflict.

Source