On June 13, 2025, Israel launched a wave of airstrikes across Iran. The targets included military and nuclear sites, and the strikes killed top Iranian commanders and scientists. Among the dead were Hossein Salami (IRGC chief), Mohammad Bagheri, and Gholamali Rashid. Nuclear scientists Fereydoun Abbasi and Mohammad Tehranchi were also killed.
With over 100 airstrikes across major Iranian cities, the attack marked a new level in Israel’s military campaign. The strikes hit key sites: Natanz’s uranium facility, missile depots near Kermanshah, and other military systems. Israel also hit targets far from typical defense zones, including a refueling aircraft at Mashhad Airport. One major strike hit South Pars gas field, a key site shared with Qatar. The strike on South Pars, described by Iranian officials as a “strategic blunder,” endangered not only Iran’s energy security but regional stability. Some strikes hit civilian neighborhoods, killing at least 406 people and injuring over 650. Among the dead were Red Crescent emergency workers and broadcast journalists—killed while delivering aid and reporting live.
Netanyahu defended the assault, claiming it was necessary for Israel’s survival and self-defense. But with over 90 nukes and a long record of bombing countries like Syria, Gaza, and now Iran, Israel looks less like a state under threat—and more like one enforcing its dominance. If every state claimed the right to bomb others based on perceived threats, the world would descend into lawless violence. This wasn’t self-defense—it was raw power, exercised without restraint, and backed by silence from allies and victimhood rhetoric.
The timing and scale of the strikes suggest deeper motives. Just as indirect U.S.–Iran nuclear talks resumed, Israel’s attack looked designed to sabotage diplomacy.
When Israel bombs freely and the world stays silent, what’s left of sovereignty?
Trump’s Shadow and Strategic Green Light
Israel didn’t carry out this operation alone. It relied on U.S. coordination—logistical, political, or both. While Trump denied any American role, the timing tells a different story. U.S. troops moved, embassies evacuated, and Trump himself posted warnings about “what’s coming next.” Behind the scenes, Israel even proposed killing Iran’s Supreme Leader. The U.S. blocked that part, not to prevent the attack, but to shape it. That’s not neutrality—it’s collaboration.
Israel acts boldly because it knows the U.S. and the West will protect it. Their silence gives Israel cover, and international law stays frozen. But while Israel struck with confidence, Iran faced a very different calculation: retaliation without escalation.
Iran’s Dilemma: Between Humiliation and Mobilization
For Iran, the assault was both a strategic and symbolic blow. It shattered the idea that Iran’s elite were untouchable—and struck a blow to national pride. The Islamic Republic faced a trap: escalate and risk full-scale war—or appear weak and risk further attacks. Facing inflation, sanctions, and unrest, Tehran looked for a way to respond without starting a war. It responded with over 100 drones and a barrage of ballistic missiles targeting Haifa, Tamra, and Israeli strategic infrastructure. Iran hit back carefully—trying to avoid a full-blown war while showing it wouldn’t stay quiet. Iran’s foreign ministry emphasized that strikes will stop only when Israeli aggression ceases, framing its response as both proportionate and sovereign.
Officials downplayed fears of radiation, though the IAEA continues to monitor the site. Newly released satellite imagery analyzed by the Institute for Space and International Security confirms significant damage to the pilot fuel enrichment plant and critical infrastructure, including electrical substations. Damaging those enrichment sites could have long-term effects—on the environment.
Yet the deeper impact may be political. Israel’s attacks, unprecedented in their scope and brazenness, provided Iran’s leadership with an opportunity to rally national unity. Even critics of the regime viewed the strikes as an attack on national sovereignty. Rather than weakening the Islamic Republic, the strikes supplied it with a ready-made external enemy narrative—strengthening its hand internally and justifying retaliatory force. Israel’s actions may have strengthened the Islamic Republic it aimed to destabilize. In waging a campaign of deterrence, it handed Iran a unifying banner as an Iranian.
A New Strategic Reality for Iran
This attack may force Iran to rethink its whole military strategy. By firing long-range hypersonic missiles, Iran showed it’s moving from ideological caution to practical deterrence.The decades-old fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini against nuclear weapons, once a key part of Iran’s defense policy—is now being questioned like never before. The attack showed that restraint doesn’t work when the other side keeps pushing harder.
Maybe survival today depends less on principles—and more on power. With the rules breaking down, advanced weapons—and even nukes—are back on the table. While Iran’s leadership has yet to formally abandon its non-nuclear stance, the logic of survivability is shifting. When power matters more than law, countries may choose to arm themselves—rather than hold back.
This isn’t just a tactical shift—it redefines sovereignty in a world where some states are allowed to stay defenseless. If Iran had nuclear weapons, would Israel have dared strike them this way?
Conclusion: From Deterrence to Hegemony—A Turning Point in the Regional Order
Israel’s June 13 assault shouldn’t be seen as just another military strike. It marked a turning point in how force is used—and who gets to use it. Israel made it clear: strike first, talk later. Deterrence is no longer the plan—dominance is. Now, even the hint of a threat is treated as reason enough to launch a war.
That big question—has deterrence been replaced by domination—has a clear, troubling answer. The scale of the attack, the choice to hit homes and energy sites, and the quiet approval from major powers like the U.S. all point to one thing: preemptive war is becoming acceptable. It’s turning into standard practice.
International law used to defend the idea of sovereignty. That protection now seems conditional—mainly for countries outside the Western alliance. Iran’s response—slow, limited, and symbolic—shows the trap it’s in. It plays by the rules, but the rules don’t apply to everyone. Iran now faces a harsh choice: keep taking hits—or rethink its whole defense strategy, including nuclear policy.
A world with no real rules. Power hits first, tells its own story, and dares the rest of the world to challenge it. Yes, Iran has its problems. Yes, the Islamic Republic faces deep internal opposition. But if that system is going to change, it must come from within. Foreign bombs won’t bring reform—only protest, resistance, and revolution can. After June 13, it’s not Iran—but Israel—that looks like the greater threat to global peace.
[Header image: Israeli attack on IRIB’s live news broadcasting studio. Credit: Avash Media, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons]
The views and opinions expressed in the article are those of the author.
Mazlum Özkan is a PhD candidate in sociology at the University of Groningen, affiliated with the SCOOP program and the ICS research center. His work explores social movements, Middle East politics—especially Iran—and the role of great powers.
