Author: Vasil Ghlonti, International Security Expert
Preface
Iran initiated its nuclear program in 2005, which was promptly regarded as a threat by the United States, Israel, the United Kingdom, and a considerable segment of the international community. Since that time, the issue has acquired heightened urgency and significance in international politics, prompting greater efforts to devise solutions. Consequently, on July 20, 2015, UN Security Council Resolution 2231 came into effect, endorsing the agreement executed by the United States, the United Kingdom, China, Russia, France, Germany, and Iran. The objective was to place Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic missile manufacture under international oversight. In 2018, the United States’ President Donald Trump opted to disengage from the accord. On October 18, 2023, the agreement lapsed, resulting in the termination of articles pertaining to the nuclear program, as well as the removal of sanctions imposed on Iran for its ballistic missiles and other advanced armaments.
Under the auspices of President Donald Trump, who assumed office for a second term, five rounds of U.S.-Iran negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program occurred between April 12 and June 13, 2025, during which both parties articulated their plans and perspectives. Notwithstanding the positive ideas from the U.S. team, Iran maintained a hardline position and declined to make any concessions. In this context, on June 13, 2025, Israel’s military and intelligence apparatus initiated a comprehensive military campaign against Iran, resulting in the dismantling of Iran’s intelligence agencies, military leadership, and prominent nuclear scientists. This inevitably led to the suspension of the U.S.-Iran talks process.
Principal Factors Contributing to Conflict
Following his re-election, President Trump prioritized addressing the challenges with Iran, as evidenced by a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) he signed on February 4, 2025. This memo indicates that pressure on Iran would be reinstated and escalated to curtail the advancement of its nuclear program. Iran must also cease the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles and halt any support or financing of terrorist organizations abroad operated by its security services.
In this context, President Trump dispatched a formal letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, which was conveyed by mediator Anwar Gargash, an advisor to the President of the United Arab Emirates. In this correspondence, the President of the United States requested negotiations regarding the nuclear program and outlined particular criteria; alternatively, it was indicated that the matter would be addressed through military means.
Iran has not officially acknowledged the letter’s existence; nevertheless, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi openly asserted that discussions between Iran and the U.S. would be impossible to holddespite of American pressure. Iran subsequently consented to conversations, attributable to the government’s prudent strategy to prevent further deterioration of its already poor relations with the United States. Nonetheless, Iran maintained that conversations should occur via intermediaries. The refusal to participate in direct negotiations should be viewed as a manifestation of disdain towards Washington and an indication of an inflexible position. The discussions on Iran’s behalf were overseen by General Ali Shamkhani of the Revolutionary Guard Corps, who was subsequently killed by Israel. Oman’s Foreign Minister, Sayyid Badr bin Hamad al-Busaidi, was designated as the mediator.
The initial round of discussions conducted in Muscat, Oman, unveiled insurmountable barriers between the parties. Nonetheless, Iranian and U.S. officials characterized the discussions as “constructive.” However, it became evident that Iran persisted in utilizing delaying strategies. The subsequent four rounds transpired in a like manner. The primary impediment between the parties was the matter of uranium enrichment. The U.S. representatives first insisted that Iran cease the uranium enrichment operation. The ideas from the United States encompassed:
1.Iran would be prohibited from establishing any new uranium enrichment facilities and would be required to remove essential infrastructure utilized for uranium conversion and reprocessing;
2.Iran must cease all research and development pertaining to centrifuges.
The U.S. offered a deal to establish a regional uranium enrichment consortium, which had numerous stipulations:
1. Iran shall not be permitted to advance its domestic uranium enrichment capabilities beyond what is required for civilian applications;
2. Following the execution of the agreement, Iran would be required to temporarily diminish uranium enrichment levels to 3%;
3. The subterranean enrichment facilities in Iran must suspend operations for a mutually determined duration;
4. Surface-level enrichment activities will be restricted to the levels necessary for the production of nuclear reactor fuel, in accordance with IAEA norms;
5. A robust system of monitoring and verification will be instituted.
In the fifth round of negotiations, the disparity between the U.S. and Iranian stances became increasingly evident. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed that Iran will not cease its uranium enrichment process under any circumstances. His unequivocal viewpoint certainly mirrored the stringent stance of Ayatollah Khamenei, who had publicly articulated his opinions. Given Donald Trump’s assertion that the U.S. will not permit Iran to enrich uranium, it is reasonable to conclude that the negotiations had basically struck an impasse.
Israel’s Military Operation
The Israeli administration was closely observing the U.S.-Iran negotiations and was ready for the worst-case scenario, including military action. Subsequently, on the evening of June 13, 2025, the Israeli Armed Forces, aided by intelligence agencies, executed a comprehensive assault on Iran’s nuclear installations, prominent nuclear scientists, and officials within its security services and military frameworks. Despite U.S. authorities announcing in May 2025 that Israel intended to conduct a significant operation and bombard Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, the meticulously conducted Israeli strikes nonetheless astonished many, including Iranian intelligence.
Iran’s defense and security systems shown significant ineffectiveness, arguably exhibiting considerable weakness in countering Israel’s targeted, tactically organized, and destructive military campaign. The successful bombing of the uranium enrichment facility at Natanz, along with its subterranean complex, the Tabriz military airstrip, Revolutionary Guard installations, and other important sites by Israel, underscores the inadequacy of Iran’s air defense systems.
Specialized focus is required regarding the assassination of prominent nuclear scientists. Among the deceased were individuals from Iran’s scientific elite in nuclear physics. Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, former head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran and parliament member; Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi; Abdol Hamid Minuchehri; Professor Ahmad Reza Zolfaghari; Professor Amir Hossein Feghhi; Akbar Motalizadeh; Saeed Barji; Mansour Asgari; Ali Baghaei Karimi.
Historically, their protection was ensured by the Revolutionary Guard Corps. Nonetheless, Israel’s Mossad and military, in intricate operations, successfully eliminated the leadership of the Guards, including:
1. Major General Hossein Salami, Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps;
2. Mohammad Kazemi, Chief of IRGC Intelligence;
3. General Mohammad Hossein Bagheri, Chief of General Staff;
4. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Aerospace Force;
5. General Ali Shamkhani, former Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and counselor to Ayatollah Khamenei (note: according to latest information Shamkhani reportedly sustained critical injuries but survived);
6. Gholam Ali Rashidi, Deputy Chief of General Staff.
Mossad established temporary operational mobile special military bases within Iranian territory, including proximity to Tehran, and deployed attack drones, facilitating the success of their missions. This effort parallels Ukraine’s intelligence-driven initiative against Russia, designated “Spiderweb”. Israel’s tactical campaign against Iran closely resembled prior operations aimed at dismantling the leadership of terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, during which Mossad and Aman practically eradicated their command structures.
It is notable that while Israel is intentionally and purposefully targeting Iran’s intelligence, military infrastructure, and nuclear scientific elite, Iran is retaliating with indiscriminate missile assaults on Israeli urban centers and civilian casualties. This indicates the diminished operational effectiveness of Iran’s spy agencies. Significantly, although Iran’s foremost intelligence and military leaders were neutralized, the nation failed to inflict harm on any senior Israeli military or intelligence personnel.
Notwithstanding Israel’s rapid and efficient measures, it is premature to assert that Iran’s intelligence and military agencies have entirely forfeited their resistance capabilities. against June 16, Iranian counterintelligence apprehended Israeli intelligence operatives, and the IRGC’s Air Force executed missile strikes against Israeli urban centers. Predictably, after to Israel’s military intervention, Iran formally declared the cessation of negotiations with the United States.
Synopsis
From the beginning, it was clear that the U.S.-Iran negotiations were destined to fail, as Iran exhibited an uncooperative stance and showed no willingness to concede on its nuclear program. Its involvement in the negotiations was a disingenuous strategy grounded in Eastern-style diplomacy, which consistently sought to extend the process. Iran certainly intended to gain time using this method. Nevertheless, the Iranian leadership misjudged the situation, underestimating that the United States and Israel would no longer tolerate such tactics, particularly under Donald Trump, who persistently championed stringent actions against Iran. His regime was impervious to conventional Eastern diplomatic approaches.
Israel likely decided to initiate an assault on Iran prior to the commencement of negotiations. This is further substantiated by the evidence that Israel’s extensive special operation had evidently been in planning for an extended period. A military strike of such precision and efficacy could not have been conducted in any other manner. Consequently, it may be inferred that the U.S.-Iran negotiations were, on one hand, essentially a formality, as the sides maintained significantly differing perspectives and exhibited an unwillingness to compromise. Conversely, the negotiation process seems to have lulled Iran into a deceptive sense of security, which Israel capitalized on to its benefit.
Potential Advancements
To comprehend the potential progression of events, it is essential to evaluate numerous critical aspects. In particular:
- In light of the existing circumstances, it may be asserted that the opposing factions are not currently predisposed to engage in discourse. Given the nature of the war, a further escalation of the military confrontation is probable. This is indicated by the adversarial and inflexible dispositions of both sides. Furthermore, both Israel and Iran have substantial arsenals of contemporary armaments, encompassing ballistic missiles and military-grade munitions;
- The United States’ stance will likely hold significant importance. The U.S. is striving to evade direct engagement in the fight, however it has deployed substantial military assets in bases encircling Iran and is thoroughly equipped for any eventuality. This is additionally substantiated by the deployment of new military vessels to the region by the Pentagon. Should the Israel-Iran conflict intensify and jeopardize the existence of the State of Israel, the United States, owing to its alliance commitments, will certainly engage in the battle;
- Despite escalating military-political pressure from Israel and the United States, should Iran maintain its refusal to comply with the presented demands and continue its bombardment of Israeli territory, it is conceivable that Benjamin Netanyahu may opt to deploy nuclear weapons to counteract Iran’s actions. This presents a risk of radiation dissemination and may result in an environmental disaster, particularly given that the bombing of the Natanz complex has already highlighted global concerns regarding ecological hazards;
- Despite Iran’s seeming unpreparedness for Israel’s military assault, the threats originating from this Islamic nation must not be overlooked. Iran possesses substantial resources, encompassing military people and armaments. Moreover, the foundation of its military and intelligence apparatus consists of ideologically motivated troops. Defeating Iran, a nation with numerous ideologically devoted paramilitary organizations, particularly via a land invasion, would be exceedingly challenging. Consequently, it is unlikely that anyone would readily opt to initiate a ground operation against Iran;
- It is crucial to acknowledge pro-Iranian proxy groups and terrorist organizations that Iran’s intelligence agencies have cultivated, equipped, and trained to target Israel and the United States. It is important to acknowledge that certain factions, like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Palestine’s Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and pro-Iranian Shia forces in Syria, may presently harbor discontent towards Iran’s leadership. This is due to Tehran’s insufficient intervention in their previous battles with Israel, falling short of their expectations. A spokesperson of Yemen’s Ansar Allah has affirmed that the Houthis will unequivocally assist Iran in its conflict against Israel;
- In this framework, a revolutionary scenario in Iran cannot be dismissed, as there exists significant anti-regime sentiment across many parts of Iranian society. In recent decades, the religious elite of Iran and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps have entirely seized power, resulting in a critical deterioration of the nation’s socio-economic position. Prior to the Israeli assault in May and June, a significant number of Iranians, primarily drivers, initiated a strike, resulting in widespread arrests. It is important to acknowledge that Iran possesses a distinctive trait: when confronted by an external adversary, the Iranian populace typically consolidates in opposition to the shared threat. The Iranian administration consistently and adeptly capitalizes on this attitude. In this context, the outcome will largely hinge on the ability of the U.S. and Israel to effectively inspire and mobilize the Iranian populace against the Ayatollah regime, aided by Iran’s opposition factions;
Currently, there are no apparent signs of a civil war emerging in Iran, as the Israel-Iran conflict remains in its nascent phase. Dissatisfaction exists among the Iranian populace over the regime; yet, it has not escalated to a point capable of inciting an armed mass rebellion.
This article was translated from the original language with the assistance of AI tools and revised by the author