Raz Zimmt

After 12 days of fighting—the peak of a decades-long confrontation between Jerusalem and Tehran—how should Israel prepare for what lies ahead?

Iran is approaching a crossroads regarding the continuation of the fighting against Israel: What dilemmas is it facing—and what should Israel be preparing for?

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion (“Am KeLavi”) targeting Iran’s missile and nuclear program. This interactive map highlights the locations of direct attacks on Iranian territory attributed to Israel, along with Iran’s key military and nuclear facilities. The map is updated regularly and as accurately as possible, based on open-source intelligence assessments and media reports.

Following the collapse of the Assad regime, Hezbollah’s erosion, and increasing pressures on the Shiite militias, is there still a cohesive “Shiite axis” under Tehran’s strategic guidance?

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.  

Since the end of 2024 there has been growing criticism from ultra-conservative and revolutionary factions in the Islamic Republic on issues of domestic and foreign policy. Most of the criticism has focused on Iran’s lack of response to the Israeli attack on October 26, 2024, Iranian failures in Syria in view of the collapse of the Assad regime, and the decision to postpone implementation of the hijab law, which is intended to increase the severity of penalties for breaches of the Islamic dress code. Although disagreements between the main political streams in Iran are a regular feature of the system, the protest by radical groups is a subject of intense public and political interest, mainly because it centers around decisions that are not the sole responsibility of the government and that were taken by political institutions directly subordinate to the supreme leader, particularly the Supreme National Security Council. Therefore, sections of the conservative camp have expressed concern that the challenges to government policy posed by the radicals could not only further undermine social cohesion but also damage the unity of the governing elite. Even if the radical elements’ growing criticism of regime policy does not constitute an immediate and significant threat to the unity of the Iranian political and security elite, it could undermine the basis of the regime’s ideological support and harm its long-term ability to deal with more important threats to its stability.