The recent Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear and military sites, particularly the Natanz uranium enrichment facility, have thrust the Middle East into a precarious moment of tension. These attacks, reported on June 13, 2025, mark a significant escalation in the long-standing Israel-Iran rivalry, raising questions about who stands to gain from this conflict, who is driving the escalation, and how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has shaped the global response.
The Beneficiaries of Israel’s Attacks on Iran
Israel’s Strategic Interests
Israel’s primary motivation for targeting Iran’s nuclear facilities, such as Natanz, appears rooted in its long-standing view of Iran’s nuclear program as an existential threat. By striking key sites, Israel aims to delay or disrupt Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons, a concern amplified by the IAEA’s recent findings that Iran is non-compliant with its nuclear obligations for the first time in two decades. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has framed these attacks as part of “Operation Rising Lion,” intended to “roll back the Iranian threat to Israel’s survival.” The strikes also signal Israel’s military prowess and determination, potentially bolstering domestic support for Netanyahu’s government amid internal political pressures.
However, the benefits for Israel are not guaranteed. While the strikes may temporarily set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions, they risk provoking a stronger retaliatory response, as Iran has vowed a “history-making” counterstrike. Israel’s limited aerial refueling capacity and reliance on U.S. logistical support, such as intelligence sharing, could constrain its ability to sustain prolonged operations, potentially limiting the strategic gains.
Energy Markets and Oil Traders
The attacks have immediate implications for global energy markets, particularly given Iran’s strategic position along the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of the world’s oil passes. Energy traders are closely monitoring the situation, as any Iranian retaliation targeting oil infrastructure or shipping routes could disrupt millions of barrels of oil daily. Vandana Hari of Vandana Insights noted to the BBC that while the situation could de-escalate quickly, as seen in previous Israel-Iran exchanges in April and October 2024, a broader conflict could “spiral out into a bigger war that disrupts Mideast oil supply.”
Oil prices have already climbed above $68 a barrel, the highest since April 2024, reflecting market jitters. Saul Kavonic, head of energy research at MST Financial, highlighted an “initial risk-on reaction” in markets, with further escalation potentially driving prices higher. Energy traders and speculators could profit from this volatility, particularly if disruptions materialize. Conversely, major oil-importing nations, such as China, Iran’s largest petroleum client, could face economic strain if supply chains are interrupted.
Iran’s Regional Proxies and Domestic Narrative
Iran’s leadership, facing domestic economic challenges and tightened political controls, may paradoxically benefit from the attacks by rallying nationalist sentiment. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and state media have downplayed the damage from Israel’s strikes while emphasizing Iran’s resilience and readiness to respond. This narrative strengthens the regime’s domestic legitimacy, portraying Iran as a victim of external aggression. Iran’s proxies, such as Hezbollah and the Houthis, could also gain leverage, as heightened regional tensions provide opportunities to expand their influence or secure additional Iranian support.
However, Iran risks overplaying its hand. A disproportionate response could alienate neutral regional actors or provoke further Israeli or U.S. intervention, undermining Iran’s strategic position. The Houthi warning to Newsweek that an attack on Iran “will drag the entire region into the abyss of war” underscores the high stakes for Iran’s allies.
Global Powers and Arms Industries
The escalation benefits defense contractors and arms industries in the U.S., Israel, and allied nations. The U.S. deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system and the diversion of counter-drone capabilities from Ukraine to the Middle East highlight the demand for advanced weaponry. Israel’s strikes, which reportedly targeted Iran’s air defenses and missile production, demonstrate the effectiveness of its military technology, potentially boosting export markets. Similarly, Western nations pushing for sanctions against Iran may see geopolitical leverage in containing Tehran’s influence, though this risks alienating Russia and China, who opposed the IAEA’s censure resolution.
Who Is Behind the Escalation?
Israel’s Preemptive Strategy
Israel’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear and military sites stems from a combination of opportunity and perceived necessity. The IAEA’s June 2025 resolution, backed by the U.S., France, Germany, and the UK, formally declared Iran non-compliant with its nuclear obligations, providing Israel with a pretext for action. Israeli officials have long viewed Iran’s nuclear advancements—enriching uranium to 60% purity, close to the 90% needed for weapons-grade material—as a red line. The decimation of Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, in recent years has further emboldened Israel, reducing Tehran’s deterrence capabilities. Reports from The War Zone indicate that Israel had completed operational preparations for a strike, suggesting a calculated move to exploit Iran’s vulnerabilities.
Western Powers and the IAEA
The IAEA’s censure resolution, passed with 19 votes in favor, 11 abstentions, and opposition from Russia, China, and Burkina Faso, has been a pivotal factor in escalating tensions. Western nations, particularly the U.S., France, Germany, and the UK, have pushed for stricter oversight of Iran’s nuclear program since the collapse of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The resolution’s focus on uranium traces at undeclared sites and Iran’s failure to cooperate fully with IAEA inspections has fueled suspicions of a clandestine weapons program, justifying Israel’s actions in the eyes of its allies.
However, Iran’s nuclear chief, Mohammad Eslami, has accused IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi of being a “tool” of Western powers, suggesting the agency’s findings are politically motivated. This perception complicates diplomatic efforts, as Iran’s announcement of a new, secure uranium enrichment facility signals defiance rather than compliance.
Iran’s Provocative Posture
Iran’s own actions have contributed to the escalation. Its direct missile attacks on Israel in April and October 2024, dubbed “Operation True Promise,” marked a shift from proxy warfare to open confrontation. These strikes, though largely intercepted, demonstrated Iran’s willingness to test Israel’s defenses. Iran’s subsequent threats of a “proportionate” response to any Israeli action, coupled with its refusal to fully cooperate with the IAEA, have heightened fears of a nuclear breakout. The Carnegie Endowment notes that Iran’s advanced nuclear capabilities and reduced IAEA oversight increase the risk of miscalculation, potentially pushing Tehran toward weaponization.
U.S. Role and Ambiguity
The U.S. has played a dual role, both restraining and enabling escalation. President Donald Trump has publicly distanced himself from Israel’s strikes, emphasizing diplomatic efforts through Oman to negotiate a new nuclear deal. However, U.S. logistical support, such as intelligence sharing and air defense deployments, indirectly facilitates Israel’s operations. The partial evacuation of U.S. embassy staff from Iraq and military dependents from the region signals Washington’s concern about retaliation, yet its commitment to defending Israel against Iranian counterattacks ensures continued involvement. This ambiguity reflects the U.S.’s delicate balancing act between de-escalation and alliance obligations.
Ground for the Global Community
The IAEA’s role in this crisis has been both technical and political, shaping the international response to Iran’s nuclear program and Israel’s strikes.
Legitimizing Action Through Oversight
The IAEA’s June 2025 resolution, declaring Iran non-compliant with its nuclear safeguards, provided a critical justification for Israel’s attacks. By highlighting Iran’s failure to explain uranium traces at undeclared sites, the agency reinforced Western suspicions of a covert weapons program. This finding, the first of its kind since 2005, has set the stage for potential UN Security Council sanctions, a process that could further isolate Iran diplomatically. The resolution’s passage, despite opposition from Russia and China, underscores the IAEA’s influence in rallying Western support for action against Tehran.
Monitoring and Verification
The IAEA’s ongoing monitoring of Iran’s nuclear facilities, particularly Natanz and Fordow, has been crucial in assessing the impact of Israel’s strikes. Director-General Rafael Grossi confirmed that Natanz was targeted but emphasized the agency’s efforts to monitor radiation levels and communicate with Iranian authorities. This transparency helps mitigate fears of a radiological disaster while maintaining pressure on Iran to comply with inspections. However, Iran’s threat to reduce cooperation with the IAEA, as stated by deputy nuclear chief Behrouz Kamalvandi, could limit the agency’s visibility, increasing uncertainty about Tehran’s nuclear intentions.
Diplomatic Balancing Act
Grossi’s warnings that Israeli strikes could push Iran toward nuclear weaponization reflect the IAEA’s delicate role as a neutral arbiter. By cautioning against attacks on nuclear sites, the agency seeks to prevent escalation while upholding its mandate to ensure non-proliferation. Yet, Iran’s accusations of bias, coupled with its plans for a new enrichment facility, challenge the IAEA’s credibility. The agency’s call for Iran to provide answers “without delay” aims to maintain diplomatic pressure, but the polarized vote on the censure resolution highlights the difficulty of achieving global consensus.
Broader Implications and Risks
The escalation between Israel and Iran carries profound risks for the region and beyond. A prolonged conflict could disrupt global energy supplies, exacerbate economic instability, and draw in major powers, including the U.S., Russia, and China. The IAEA’s findings have amplified these risks by legitimizing Israel’s actions while prompting Iran to double down on its nuclear ambitions. The Strait of Hormuz remains a flashpoint, with Iran’s ability to disrupt shipping posing a threat to global trade.
On the other hand, de-escalation remains possible. Previous Israel-Iran exchanges in 2024 ended without spiraling into all-out war, suggesting both sides may seek to avoid catastrophic escalation. The U.S.-led nuclear talks in Oman, scheduled for June 15, 2025, offer a potential off-ramp, though Iran’s rejection of a U.S. proposal for zero enrichment complicates prospects for a deal.
Complex interplay
The beneficiaries of Israel’s attacks on Iran are multifaceted, ranging from Israel’s strategic planners and global energy traders to Iran’s domestic leadership and Western defense industries. The escalation is driven by a complex interplay of Israel’s preemptive calculations, Western diplomatic pressure through the IAEA, Iran’s provocative actions, and U.S. ambiguity. The IAEA has played a pivotal role in shaping the global response by highlighting Iran’s non-compliance, but its efforts to prevent further escalation face significant challenges. As the region teeters on the brink, the coming days will determine whether diplomacy can prevail or if the Middle East will descend into a broader conflict with far-reaching consequences.
Refrances:
-
Al Jazeera, “Iran warns of ‘proportionate’ response as IAEA mulls censure,” June 11, 2025
-
BBC, “What we know about Israel’s attack on Iran,” October 28, 2024
-
AP News, “Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear and military sites,” June 13, 2025
-
The War Zone, “Damning IAEA Report Has Given Israel Additional Pretext To Strike Iran,” June 13, 2025
-
NBC News, “Israel strikes Iran as fears of another war mount,” June 13, 2025
-
Reuters, “Israel said it targeted Iran’s nuclear facilities,” June 13, 2025
-
IAEA, “Statement on situation in Iran,” June 13, 2025
