A weakened Iran has few options for striking back after Israel’s devastating blows

Israel has launched a sweeping military and intelligence strike against Iran, marking a turning point in regional geopolitics.

Despite widespread expectations of retaliation, Iran now appears unable to mount a strong response. Its top commanders are dead. Its air defenses are crippled. And its nuclear infrastructure lies damaged. This leaves Israel as the clear dominant force in the Middle East—militarily, tactically, and perhaps even diplomatically.

Friday’s strikes echoed the precision and long-term planning seen in Israel’s earlier operation against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The dismantling of Hezbollah last summer, Iran’s key second-strike capability, likely paved the way for this week’s broader assault.

“This looks like the culmination of a months-long plan,” said regional analyst Michael Horowitz. “Israel moved decisively once it sensed Iran was vulnerable.”

Iran suffered deep internal blows. Images from Tehran showed surgical strikes on specific apartment units—suggesting cellphone-tracked targeting. Iran confirmed the deaths of its top three active-duty commanders and a lead nuclear negotiator. Analysts suggest more key figures may have been eliminated.

The strikes coincided with a scheduled sixth round of nuclear talks between Iran and the United States in Oman. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may have seen this as his last chance to act before diplomacy complicated further action.

In parallel, Israel expanded its air campaign across western Iran. Dozens of radar and missile systems were destroyed, according to Israeli defense officials. Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization also confirmed that Natanz, its primary nuclear enrichment facility, was damaged—though the extent remains unclear.

“Iran’s air defenses were already weak,” said security expert Behnam Ben Taleblu of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “This makes a swift, proportional retaliation nearly impossible.”

Israel’s intelligence network now appears focused on exploiting its momentum. Reports indicate continued surveillance and follow-up strikes against moving targets. Commanders, equipment, and even nuclear material in transit may all be vulnerable.

Hezbollah’s defeat now seems central to Israel’s larger plan. Without that regional proxy intact, Iran cannot retaliate using its traditional methods. That failure likely emboldened Israel to strike deeper into Iranian territory than ever before.

Netanyahu appears to have wagered that Iran cannot race to build a nuclear weapon fast enough under pressure. Doing so, analysts say, would be difficult with exposed leadership and weakened infrastructure.

There are also diplomatic consequences. The United States, under President Donald Trump, had urged Israel to hold off. Israel ignored that request.

“Israel acted because it no longer trusted the U.S. to manage the threat through diplomacy,” said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli diplomat. “They made it clear—they’ll act alone if needed.”

Critics argue this move undermines the U.S. global influence. Despite Trump’s warnings, Israel’s defiance revealed the limits of American control in the region.

The risk now is that Iran may turn to asymmetrical tactics. If it cannot strike back conventionally, it may attempt cyberattacks or proxy strikes in less-guarded areas. Still, Israel appears prepared for a range of responses.

“There’s a danger of overreach,” warned analyst Trita Parsi of the Quincy Institute. “Israel’s success today could invite long-term instability.”

What remains unclear is whether this attack ends Iran’s nuclear ambitions—or accelerates them. Iran has always insisted its nuclear program is peaceful. But the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog reported last week that Iran violated key non-proliferation rules.

If Iran decides to pursue a weapon now, it must do so under threat of continuous, targeted strikes. It would also face mounting international pressure, especially as its negotiating posture weakens.

In the meantime, the region watches as Israel sets the pace. The country has shown it will act unilaterally, regardless of U.S. objections or international opinion. It is reshaping the Middle East by force—confident, calculated, and, at times, indifferent to the consequences.

As events unfold, the question remains: Will this operation lead to long-term security—or spark a broader conflict?