Special Update: The US – Israel Alliance attacks Iran: 2025.06.13
Welcome to EPM, this special update with a closer look at the US – Israel Alliance attack on Iran.
Early morning Friday, Israeli warplanes did what we at EPM did not expect. In our Thursday update we explained why we were of the opinion that the US would not attack Iran, nor allow Israel to attack. The signposts were that the Trump administration was in the process of sidelining the Israeli influence on the US’s Iran policy, while president Trump himself clearly articulated a preference for a negotiated Iran deal, and for that reason told Israel not to attack Iran. Nevertheless, during the early hours of Friday, Israel launched a large-scale attack on Iran. Why we were wrong, what this unexpected development means, and what it could possibly result in, EPM explains below.
The Attack
Reuters writes that some 200 Israeli fighter jets took part in the strikes, hitting more than 100 targets in Iran, targeting nuclear facilities, ballistic missile factories, military commanders, and nuclear scientists.
As to the nuclear facilities, CNN writes that the Natanz nuclear complex, about 250 kilometers (150 miles) south of Tehran, was struck. It is considered Iran’s largest uranium enrichment facility. Analysts say the site is used to develop and assemble centrifuges, and perform uranium enrichment. The Natanz complex has above ground and below ground facilities. The IAEA did not record an increase in radiation levels at the site, which if correct indicates that the below ground enrichment facilities have not been destroyed. The other nuclear facilities in Iran, Isfahan and Fordow, appear not to have not been struck on Friday morning. The Guardian adds that the Bushehr nuclear power plant was also not struck.
As to the ballistic missile factories, The Guardian writes that Bid Kaneh, which hosts several missile development and production sites, was also hit on Friday morning.
As to the military commanders, The New York Times writes that Israel killed three of Iran’s most senior military commanders. Major General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the armed forces and the second-highest commander after Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. General Hossein Salami, commander in chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, Iran’s primary military force. And General Gholamali Rashid, deputy commander in chief of the armed forces. CNN has a more detailed profile on Bagheri and Salami. It also says that Ali Shamkhani, Iran’s former national security chief and one of the closest advisors to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was also killed by Israel.
As to the nuclear scientists targeted by Israel, The Guardian writes that six were reported killed. Among them, Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, who was the president of the Islamic Azad University of Iran, a theoretical physicist and the president of the Islamic Azad University in Tehran; and Fereydoun Abbasi, a former head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran. In addition Abdolhamid Minouchehr, Ahmadreza Zolfaghari, Amirhossein Feqhi, Motalleblizadeh, were named as the other scientists who were killed.
Israel says its Friday attack was only the beginning of a larger operation, writes Axios. Israel says it plans to keep attacking Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming days, along with other targets. Overall, the operation is expected to last weeks, featuring not only aerial strikes but also covert operations by Mossad operatives on the ground in Iran to sabotage the country’s missile and air defense sites.
The US Position
The US has officially distanced itself from the Israeli attack. Marco Rubio, Trump's Secretary of State and National Security Adviser, stressed that Israel's strikes were unilateral, writes Reuters. "We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region." However, Rubio also confirmed the US had been informed by Israel before the attacks on Iran had begun. He said, "Israel advised us that they believe this action was necessary for its self-defense," Reuters added.
However, an Israeli official told the Israeli media outlet Kan that Israel had coordinated with the US, writes The Guardian. Recent reports of rifts between Israel and Washington were false, but had not been denied as part of a media ruse to confuse Iran, he said.
In an interview with Fox on Thursday evening, US president Trump gave away that he was aware of the details of the planned operation. "Iran cannot have a nuclear bomb and we are hoping to get back to the negotiating table. We will see. There are several people in leadership that will not be coming back," Trump stated during the interview.
On his social media Trump gave away many more details of the operation, writes The Independent.
I told them it would be much worse than anything they know, anticipated, or were told, that the United States makes the best and most lethal military equipment anywhere in the World, BY FAR, and that Israel has a lot of it, with much more to come - And they know how to use it. (…) Certain Iranian hardliner’s spoke bravely, but they didn’t know what was about to happen. They are all DEAD now, and it will only get worse! There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end.
Trump concluded his post saying, “Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left, and save what was once known as the Iranian Empire. No more death, no more destruction, JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.”
EPM’s Analysis
It is well known that there is close collaboration and coordination between the US and Israel on anything military or security related.
As to Israel’s attack on Iran in particular, Axios writes the operation was eight months in the making, and that the US was well aware of it throughout this period. In addition, Axios says, Israel not only informed the US of when the attacks would be launched, but also actively collaborated with the US in order to ensure the Iranians would be unprepared. Two Israeli officials claimed to Axios that Trump and his aides were only pretending to oppose an Israeli attack in public, but didn't express opposition in private. "We had a clear U.S. green light," one claimed. The goal, they said, was to convince Iran that no attack was imminent and make sure Iranians on Israel's target list wouldn't move to new locations. Netanyahu's aides even briefed Israeli reporters that Trump had tried to put the brakes on an Israeli strike in a call on Monday, when in reality the call dealt with coordination ahead of the attack, the Israeli officials said to Axios. EPM notes that as the US was aware, it had the ability to stop the operation at any moment during the 8 months of preparation. After all, Israel is completely dependent on US military and economic support. Therefore, if the US wants something from Israel, it has the ability to get it, simply by threatening to “pause” this support. Previous US presidents used this leverage to make Israel fall in line with US policies and plans, writes Responsible Statecraft. Clearly, the US chose not to stop Israel, which indicates it supported the attack and is an accomplice – irrespective of whether it provided hands-on support or not.
As to why the US took this position, while it is still negotiating with Iran, EPM sees the operation and the narrative that is being built around it, i.e. the “Israel did it and the US had no involvement in it” storyline, as a typical “good cop bad cop” approach. The US arm of the US – Israel Alliance proposed a deal to Iran, made demands from Iran similar to what Israel demands from Iran, i.e. complete destruction of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. Iran naturally refused this proposal as accepting it equates to complete and unconditional surrender to the US – Israel Alliance, for it would end Iran’s ability to defend itself and thus leave it exposed to extortion by the US – Israel Alliance in the future. The Israeli arm of the US – Israel Alliance then proceeded to attack Iran and seriously weaken it, while the US arm of the US – Israel Alliance feigned impartiality. After this, the “neutral” US arm of the US – Israel Alliance will repeat its proposal to Iran, adding that if Iran accepts it, the US will speak to Israel to convince it to halt its attacks.
As to Iran, it appears it was totally unprepared for what happened today, with the worst part being that its military and security leadership was not properly protected. EPM notes that as analysts it is our job to develop scenarios for the future, and to assess which one of these is the most likely. Any military person knows, however, that an army must always prepare for the worst-case scenario, whether it is deemed likely by analysts or not. Iran should very clearly have prepared for an Israel attack on its leadership, therefore, as such an attack was clearly a possible scenario. The US – Israel Alliance playbook in Lebanon, when Israel’s military similarly went after Hezbollah’s leadership while in the background the US diplomatic corps worked to establish a political front against Hezbollah, had already made clear that the Iranian leadership could find itself under attack. That the Iranian security establishment nevertheless allowed the key people in its military, security and nuclear leadership to stay at home, rather than in secret and/or secured locations, even after the US on Thursday announced it was calling back from the Middle East non-essential staff due to a heightened security threat. This indicates Iranian negligence bordering on criminality, in the EPM assessment. It leads us at EPM to speculate that in the background, the US – Israel Alliance is working with elements inside the Iranian leadership to collaboratively eliminate the “hardline nationalist” faction among Iran’s elites – a perfect repeat of the playbook used against Hezbollah in Lebanon, effectively.
Future Scenarios
From the perspective of Iran’s national interest, what would make sense is a strong response to re-establish deterrence. Such a response would require a military attack on the critical infrastructure, nuclear facilities, military and intelligence headquarters, and even political leadership of Israel, utilizing the full Iranian arsenal of ballistic and hypersonic missiles. It would make sense for Iran to push its allies in Lebanon and Yemen to support this attack, even at the expense of their own interests, as Israel will struggle to defend itself against a three-front attack. In other words, whatever military hardware Hezbollah and the Houthi’s have left, they would in this scenario be pushed by Iran to utilize it now against Israel, in coordination with Iran. In this scenario, it would further make sense for Iran to seek active Russian and Chinese support, by stressing the fact that in reality it is being attacked not by Israel alone, but by the US – Israel Alliance. Iran is of significant importance to the Russian war effort in Ukraine, and of significant importance to the Chinese economy via its (discounted) crude oil sales. Once defeated, the US – Israel Alliance will certainly put pressure on the Iranian leadership to end its support for Russia and China, and as such it is in the interest of Russia and China to support Iran in its current “hour of need” – also because a Middle Eastern success for the US will enable it to devote more of its resources to other areas of competition in the future, i.e. Russia and China.
Clearly, this scenario entails a significant escalation of the unrest in the Middle East. Even though it would make sense for Iran to avoid striking US facilities in the Middle East in this scenario, so as not to give the US an excuse to officially join the war. US President Trump promised his voter-base that he would end the US habit of engaging in wars that are not central to US interests, and in the current situation there are therefore “political limits” to the support the US can provide Israel. These limitations would remain in place as long as Iran refrains from attacking the US.
In a scenario related to the above one, the other regional players such as Saudi Arabia allow themselves to be drawn into the conflict, by providing active or passive support for the US – Israel Alliance. In this case, the escalation could lead to a regional hot war, in which the US and Russia with China support opposing sides.
In another scenario based on Iran’s national interest to re-establish deterrence, Iran now makes it a priority to get its hands on a nuclear weapon. Either by developing it itself, or by requesting Russia or China to station a nuclear weapon in Iran, similar to how the US has stationed its nuclear weapons in countries around the world. This would enable Iran to threaten the “ultimate escalation”, that is complete annihilation of Israel, in order to force an end to the hostilities of the US – Israel Alliance. In this scenario, Iran would cease diplomatic relations with the US, as these have become pointless. Also in this scenario, the Israel – Iran war remains contained, both in intensity and time, and a regional war is prevented. But a new, tense environment is established in the Middle East, as Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries will likely feel threatened by a nuclear Iran.
EPM, however, does not think these scenarios are the most likely. Most likely, in our view, based on Iran’s past behavior, is that Iran will beg for a “diplomatic solution”. In this scenario, it agrees to the US proposed nuclear deal, in return for which it will receive and end to war and some sanctions relief. It might, in this scenario, also undertake another token military response to the Israeli attack, similar to what it did in April 2024, as Politico noted at the time, but this would again be carefully designed to enable a face-saving end to the current war. In reality, however, by accepting the US proposal Iran will in this scenario practically surrender unconditionally to the US – Israel Alliance (which would incite internal demand for regime change).