Raz Zimmt

Amid ongoing negotiations between Iran and the United States, we are approaching a critical juncture regarding the future of Iran’s nuclear program—caught between the possibility of a diplomatic resolution and the threat of military action (by Israel and/or the United States). This interactive map highlights Iran’s key military and nuclear facilities, along with the locations of direct attacks on Iranian territory attributed to Israel in April and October 2024. Whether the coming months bring renewed diplomatic efforts toward a nuclear agreement or a military escalation with Iran, this regularly updated map provides a valuable resource for understanding Iran’s strategic assets. These assets form a central pillar of Iran’s deterrence posture against its adversaries—chief among them, Israel—especially given the weakening of its regional proxy network—which the Islamic Republic has built over years—due to the ongoing wars in Gaza and Lebanon and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. The map is updated regularly and as accurately as possible, based on open-source intelligence assessments and media reports.

The talks that began in April 2025 between Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi and the US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff—with Oman’s mediation—are bringing Iran, the United States, and Israel closer to critical moments regarding the future of Iran’s nuclear program. The results of the negotiations will largely determine whether the direction will be toward a political-diplomatic settlement on the nuclear issue or toward a military strike (Israeli, American, or joint) against Iran’s nuclear facilities. At this stage, it is clear that both the Iranian leadership, headed by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and the American administration, led by President Donald Trump, prefer a diplomatic solution over military confrontation, the outcomes and consequences of which are difficult to foresee. However, in the absence of an agreement that blocks Iran’s path to nuclear weapons, and given a decision to resort to a military option, Israel must coordinate this with the United States—even if this does not guarantee active American participation in the strike. Coordination and cooperation with the United States are necessary for Israel to defend against an Iranian response, preserve achievements following the strike, and ensure American support in efforts to prevent the rehabilitation of Iran’s nuclear program—whether by kinetic military means, covert operations, or diplomatic measures. In any case, it is essential to emphasize the need for a comprehensive campaign against Iran and not solely against its nuclear program. A joint American–Israeli strike could provide the optimal solution to the challenge, provided it is part of a broader campaign against the Islamic Republic and should be planned accordingly. At the end of such a campaign, a complementary diplomatic move must be led, ensuring the achievement of all strategic goals against Iran, including blocking its path to nuclear weapons, dismantling the pro-Iranian axis, and imposing limits on its missile project.  

How will the emerging changes in the Washington–Kyiv–Moscow triangle impact Tehran?

Against the backdrop of Iran’s weakening: How does Israel’s potential involvement in destabilizing the Iranian regime align with its overarching objectives in the broader campaign against Tehran?

What are the implications of the Syrian rebels’ surprise attack against the Assad regime, who are the players involved, and what are the consequences for Israel?

Hamas’ attack on October 7, 2023, reopened the debate on the role of revolutionary ideology in the decision-making of radical Islamic actors. On November 6, 2024, the Institute for National Security Studies held a professional forum to discuss lessons, insights, and implications regarding the function of revolutionary religious ideology in the conduct of Islamist actors during the multi-front campaign over the past year. While the forum expressed broad consensus on the importance of ideology in shaping actions, disagreements emerged regarding the need for a paradigm shift on the approach to revolutionary ideological actors, given the lessons of the war and the impact of the regional war.