What the strikes on Iran revealed about Israeli vulnerability and regional realignment
The June 2025 attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities tested a generation of assumptions about proxy coordination and Israeli defense capacity. The outcome defied predictions of both triumph and collapse, exposing structural dynamics that will shape Middle Eastern security for decades.
🎧 Listen to this article
The Geometry of Miscalculation
In June 2025, Israeli and American aircraft struck Iran’s nuclear facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan. The IAEA confirmed “extensive additional damage” across multiple sites. Tehran’s enrichment program—which had accumulated over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%—went dark. The International Atomic Energy Agency’s inspectors remained in-country but stopped verification activities entirely.
What followed was not the apocalyptic regional conflagration that analysts had predicted for decades. Nor was it Israeli triumph. Instead, a more instructive outcome emerged: the exposure of assumptions that had structured Middle Eastern security thinking for a generation.
The strikes tested a proposition that had achieved near-doctrinal status: that attacking Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would trigger simultaneous proxy activation across five countries, overwhelming Israeli defenses and collapsing its regional position. This proposition rested on two beliefs—that Iran could coordinate such activation, and that Israel could not absorb it. Both proved wrong, but not in ways that favor simple conclusions.
Israel’s position neither strengthened nor collapsed. It transformed. Understanding why requires abandoning the binary framing that dominates most analysis and examining the structural dynamics that actually govern regional conflict.
The Coordination Myth
Iran’s “Axis of Resistance” spans Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza. On paper, this network represents formidable asymmetric capability: Hezbollah’s precision missile arsenal, the Houthis’ Red Sea disruption capacity, Iraqi militias’ proximity to American bases, and residual Hamas infrastructure. Tehran has spent decades cultivating these relationships through the IRGC’s Quds Force, which provides training, weaponry, and funds to promote Iranian regional objectives.
The assumption that these forces could activate simultaneously reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how proxy networks function. Coordination requires communication. Communication creates signatures. Signatures enable preemption.
Israeli intelligence penetration of Hezbollah—demonstrated spectacularly in 2024 through the pager attacks—revealed the depth of this vulnerability. When strikes on Iranian facilities materialized, Tehran faced an immediate operational dilemma: activate proxies through compromised channels and lose them to preemption, or maintain operational security and sacrifice coordination.
Research following the 2024-2025 conflicts found that “Iran’s proxy forces lacked the training required to execute large-scale defensive operations like a conventional military and failed to coordinate and establish defensive postures.” This was not a temporary failure. It reflected structural limitations inherent to decentralized networks optimized for harassment rather than combined operations.
The Houthis could attack Red Sea shipping. They could not synchronize those attacks with Hezbollah rocket salvos in ways that would compound Israeli defense challenges. Iraqi militias could threaten American bases. They could not time those threats to coincide with Gaza operations in ways that would force strategic choice paralysis.
Each proxy retained local effectiveness. None achieved the synergistic multiplication that “five-front activation” implied.
What Israeli Defense Actually Faced
Israel’s multi-layered air and missile defense architecture—Iron Dome for short-range threats, David’s Sling for medium-range, Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 for ballistic missiles—represents one of the world’s most sophisticated integrated systems. The question was never whether this system could intercept individual threats. It was whether simultaneous saturation across multiple threat vectors would overwhelm finite interceptor inventories.
The answer proved more nuanced than either optimists or pessimists anticipated.
Iron Dome’s interception rates remained high against unguided rockets, the bulk of what Gaza-based groups could launch. David’s Sling performed effectively against the precision missiles that Hezbollah retained after Israeli degradation campaigns. The Arrow systems intercepted the limited ballistic missile attacks Iran could mount directly.
But the system revealed gaps. Bedouin villages in the Negev remained outside Iron Dome coverage—a structural choice reflecting resource allocation decisions made years earlier. Hypersonic and maneuvering threats tested intercept algorithms designed for ballistic trajectories. Sustained operations depleted interceptor stocks faster than production could replenish them.
The Israeli defense establishment discovered that survival and sustainability are different problems. They could survive the initial onslaught. They could not sustain indefinite attrition without American resupply.
This created a temporal asymmetry that neither side fully controlled. Israel needed the conflict compressed into weeks. Iran needed it extended into months. The outcome depended less on military capability than on political will to endure.
The Regional Reconfiguration
While analysts focused on the Israel-Iran military balance, the more consequential shifts occurred among states that had maintained studied ambiguity about their preferences.
Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and other Gulf monarchies faced a clarifying moment. Their investments in economic diversification—NEOM, Abu Dhabi’s technology sector, Qatar’s post-hydrocarbon positioning—required regional stability. Iranian proxy activation threatened not just Israeli territory but the credibility of Gulf security guarantees and the investment climate that sovereign wealth fund strategies depended upon.
The response was not public alignment with Israel. Gulf states lack the domestic political space for that. Instead, they provided what mattered operationally: quiet intelligence sharing, airspace permissions for American aircraft, and—critically—refusal to condemn Israeli strikes in terms that would constrain future cooperation.
As analysis from the Soufan Center noted, “the setbacks suffered by Iran and its Axis of Resistance partners in their post-October 7 battles against Israel have set the stage for a realignment of the Middle East balance of power.” This realignment accelerated rather than reversed following the nuclear facility strikes.
Post-Assad Syria presented a different dynamic. The collapse of the Syrian regime exposed vulnerabilities in Iran’s land bridge to Lebanon, making weapons and trainer transfers increasingly difficult. Syrian tribal structures—particularly the Shammar confederation—began engaging with new governance arrangements that excluded Iranian influence.
Iraq’s position proved most complex. The Popular Mobilization Forces retain significant capability and Iranian ties. But Iraqi tribal structures, particularly in areas where Iran had attempted to build influence, showed growing resistance. Research from the Washington Institute documented Iran’s declining tribal support even before the nuclear strikes intensified these dynamics.
Tehran’s Internal Fractures
The conventional analysis treats Iran as a unitary actor with coherent strategic preferences. This obscures the internal tensions that the strikes exacerbated.
The IRGC’s economic interests—estimated to control between 20% and 40% of the Iranian economy—create institutional incentives distinct from regime survival. Sanctions pressure had already generated friction between hardliners who prioritized resistance and pragmatists who recognized economic collapse as an existential threat.
The rial’s continued depreciation, documented in reporting on Iran’s economic crisis, reflected not just sanctions but domestic capital flight. Iranian elites with resources to move were moving them. This created a feedback loop: capital flight weakened the currency, currency weakness accelerated capital flight, and the regime faced the choice between economic liberalization that would undermine IRGC control and continued repression that would deepen economic crisis.
The nuclear strikes intensified this dilemma without resolving it. Regime hardliners could point to external aggression as justification for continued resistance. Pragmatists could point to the same strikes as evidence that resistance had failed to deter attack. Neither faction could impose its preferred response on the other.
Supreme Leader Khamenei’s decision-making patterns—shaped by imprisonment under the Shah, eight years of existential warfare with Iraq, and decades of managing factional competition—favor strategic patience over dramatic escalation. His formative experience accepting the 1988 ceasefire despite initial opposition taught him that ideological flexibility serves revolutionary preservation. The nuclear strikes tested whether this flexibility extended to absorbing significant military humiliation.
The evidence suggests it did, at least temporarily. Iran’s direct military response remained calibrated to avoid triggering American escalation while preserving domestic credibility. This was not weakness. It was recognition that regime survival required outlasting adversaries rather than defeating them militarily.
The American Variable
Trump’s decision to authorize strikes reflected his documented pattern of rapid, instinct-based decisions that align with pre-existing beliefs. His conviction that showing weakness invites destruction—forged through childhood experiences and reinforced by Roy Cohn’s mentorship—made military action against Iran’s nuclear program ideologically consistent with his worldview.
But the strike authorization revealed tensions in American strategic positioning that extended beyond presidential psychology.
American forces in Iraq and Syria—approximately 2,500 troops supported by roughly 50,000 contractors maintaining F-35s, Patriot batteries, intelligence fusion centers, and logistics networks—faced immediate threat escalation from Iranian-aligned militias. The contractor infrastructure that enables American military effectiveness proved vulnerable to the very proxy activation the strikes were meant to deter.
This created what one analyst described as a “force protection versus credibility” dilemma. Withdrawing to protect American personnel would signal weakness and undermine deterrence. Maintaining presence while absorbing casualties would strain domestic political support for regional engagement.
The administration chose a middle path: reinforced defensive postures, accelerated Israeli resupply, and diplomatic signaling that further escalation would trigger expanded American involvement. This worked in the immediate term. Whether it established sustainable equilibrium remained uncertain.
The Temporal Dimension
The most significant analytical error in pre-strike assessments was treating the outcome as a discrete event rather than an evolving process. Israel’s regional position in the immediate aftermath differed from its position weeks later, which differed from its position months later.
In the first 72 hours, Israel appeared vulnerable. Proxy attacks materialized across multiple fronts, defense systems faced unprecedented strain, and international criticism mounted. The IAEA’s suspension of verification activities created nuclear ambiguity that complicated diplomatic positioning.
Over the following weeks, a different picture emerged. Proxy attacks proved less coordinated than feared. Israeli defense systems demonstrated resilience. Regional states that had maintained public neutrality began providing operational support. Iran’s direct response remained calibrated rather than escalatory.
By the three-month mark, the structural dynamics had shifted further. Hezbollah’s degraded capabilities limited its ability to sustain pressure. The Houthis continued Red Sea harassment but could not translate it into strategic leverage. Iraqi militias faced growing tribal resistance to Iranian direction. Hamas’s residual infrastructure proved insufficient for meaningful operations.
This temporal evolution revealed something important about the “strengthen or collapse” framing: it assumed a stable endpoint that conflict dynamics do not produce. Israel’s position strengthened in some dimensions (reduced Iranian nuclear threat, demonstrated defense capability, enhanced regional cooperation) while weakening in others (depleted interceptor stocks, accumulated international criticism, unresolved Palestinian grievances).
What Actually Determines Regional Position
The question of whether Israel’s position strengthened or collapsed assumes that military outcomes determine regional standing. This assumption deserves scrutiny.
Israel’s regional position rests on three pillars: military capability, economic integration, and diplomatic relationships. The strikes affected each differently.
Military capability demonstrated resilience but revealed sustainability limits. Israel proved it could absorb multi-front pressure. It also proved it could not do so indefinitely without American support. This deepened dependence on Washington at precisely the moment when American domestic politics made that dependence precarious.
Economic integration—particularly the quiet commercial relationships with Gulf states that had developed since the Abraham Accords—survived largely intact. Gulf sovereign wealth funds continued investments that assumed Israeli stability. This was not endorsement. It was calculation that Israeli collapse would damage Gulf interests more than Israeli survival.
Diplomatic relationships fragmented along predictable lines. Repeated UN General Assembly resolutions condemning Israel created what analysts termed “paradoxical isolation”—diplomatic marginalization accompanied by material security through deep integration into American military-industrial supply chains.
The net assessment defies simple characterization. Israel emerged more militarily proven, more regionally integrated through quiet cooperation, more diplomatically isolated in formal institutions, and more dependent on American support. Whether this constitutes strengthening or weakening depends entirely on which dimension one weights most heavily.
The Lessons Mislearned
Both sides drew conclusions from the strikes that may prove counterproductive.
Israeli security establishment figures interpreted the outcome as validation of preemptive doctrine. If striking Iranian nuclear facilities did not trigger regional collapse, the argument went, similar strikes could address future threats with acceptable risk. This reasoning ignores the specific conditions that limited Iranian response: degraded proxy capabilities from prior conflicts, internal regime fractures, and American military backing that might not be available in future scenarios.
Iranian hardliners interpreted survival as validation of resistance doctrine. If the regime could absorb strikes on its nuclear crown jewels and maintain power, the argument went, no external pressure could compel fundamental policy change. This reasoning ignores the economic deterioration that strikes accelerated and the regional isolation that proxy activation failures deepened.
Both interpretations share a common flaw: they treat a single data point as definitive evidence for general propositions. The strikes occurred under specific conditions that may not recur. Drawing broad strategic conclusions from narrow tactical outcomes is precisely the kind of reasoning that produces miscalculation.
The Unresolved Questions
The strikes answered some questions while generating others.
They answered whether Israeli defense systems could handle multi-front pressure. They could, at least at the intensity that materialized.
They answered whether Iran could coordinate simultaneous proxy activation. It could not, at least not with the degraded networks available in 2025.
They answered whether regional states would align against Israel under pressure. They would not, at least not when their economic interests favored Israeli stability.
But they left unresolved the questions that actually determine long-term regional trajectories.
Can Israel sustain its current military posture without continuous American resupply? The interceptor depletion rates suggest not.
Can Iran reconstitute its nuclear program despite facility damage? The IAEA’s suspended verification means no one knows.
Can Gulf states maintain quiet cooperation with Israel while managing domestic populations that oppose normalization? The durability of this arrangement remains untested.
Will American commitment to Israeli security survive domestic political transitions? The dependence this creates represents Israel’s greatest vulnerability.
FAQ: Key Questions Answered
Q: Did the strikes eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability? A: The strikes caused extensive damage to enrichment facilities at Natanz, Fordow, and Isfahan, but Iran retains over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% and the technical knowledge to rebuild. The IAEA suspended verification activities, creating uncertainty about actual program status.
Q: Why didn’t Iran’s proxy networks overwhelm Israeli defenses? A: Proxy networks optimized for harassment lack the command structures and secure communications required for coordinated combined operations. Israeli intelligence penetration further degraded coordination capability, forcing proxies to operate independently rather than synergistically.
Q: How did Gulf states respond to the strikes? A: Gulf monarchies provided quiet operational support—intelligence sharing, airspace access, refusal to condemn Israel in constraining terms—while maintaining public neutrality. Their sovereign wealth fund investment strategies depend on regional stability that Iranian escalation would threaten.
Q: What does this mean for future US-Iran relations? A: The Congressional Research Service notes that US and Iranian diplomats engaged in first diplomatic talks in years following the strikes. Whether this reflects Iranian pragmatism or tactical pause remains unclear. The destruction of nuclear facilities may have paradoxically created space for negotiation by removing the immediate source of crisis.
The Uncomfortable Equilibrium
The strikes produced neither Israeli triumph nor collapse. They produced something more instructive: an equilibrium that satisfies no one but that all parties may prefer to the alternatives.
Israel demonstrated capability but revealed dependence. Iran absorbed humiliation but preserved regime survival. Regional states hedged successfully but face continued pressure to choose sides. The United States proved its commitment but deepened its entanglement.
This equilibrium is unstable. It depends on continued American support that domestic politics may not sustain. It depends on Iranian restraint that internal factional competition may not permit. It depends on regional cooperation that formal diplomatic isolation may eventually erode.
The question was whether Israel’s position would strengthen or collapse. The answer is that it did neither. It shifted into a configuration that trades one set of vulnerabilities for another. Whether that trade proves favorable depends on variables—American political continuity, Iranian internal stability, regional economic development—that military action cannot control.
The strikes demonstrated what military force can achieve: destruction of physical infrastructure, degradation of adversary capability, demonstration of resolve. They also demonstrated what military force cannot achieve: resolution of underlying conflicts, transformation of adversary intentions, or creation of durable security.
Israel’s regional position after the strikes is neither stronger nor weaker in any simple sense. It is different. And in the Middle East, different has a way of generating consequences that no one predicted and no one can control.
Sources & Further Reading
The analysis in this article draws on research and reporting from:
- IAEA Update on Developments in Iran - Official agency documentation of facility damage and verification suspension
- Council on Foreign Relations: Iran’s Regional Armed Network - Comprehensive analysis of proxy network structure and IRGC coordination
- The Soufan Center Analysis - Assessment of post-October 7 regional power realignment
- Washington Institute: Iran Is Losing Iraq’s Tribes - Documentation of declining Iranian tribal influence
- Congressional Research Service: Iran Background and U.S. Policy - Updated May 2025 policy analysis
- Daily Star: The Rial Revolt - Reporting on Iranian economic crisis and capital flight
- Security Council Report: Middle East Quarterly Open Debate - UN diplomatic dynamics documentation
- Henry Jackson Society: Regime Collapse in Iran - Analysis of Iranian internal stability factors
