ON MARCH 17, my article in ¶¶Òõ¾«Æ· posed a fateful question: ‘Will Iran be bombed or have a bomb?’ It concluded that the failure of diplomacy would force a grim choice — a US military strike to preserve the regional status quo or a desperate nuclear reveal by Iran to deter it. I described it as a ‘gamble between war and peace.’ The dice was rolled and the United States bombed Iran on June 22.
The path to this tragedy was built over years of escalating tension, failed agreements and the pursuit of strategic dominance. While the world’s attention was rightly stuck on the devastating humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza, a conflict that has drawn accusation of genocidal crimes from numerous international bodies, the architects of war were looking eastward. In Washington and Tel Aviv, the calculation was shifting. Both the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the US president Donald Trump, whose political fortunes have for long been intertwined with a hawkish stance on Iran, became publicly and privately restless. The chaos in Gaza, rather than satiating the appetite for confrontation, fuelled a desire to settle an account with Iran.
Netanyahu’s position was, and is, unambiguous. As noted in the March 2025 article, he was ‘bitterly opposed to any nuclear deal with Iran.’ His strategy has never been of containment, but of elimination. However, his ambitions have always been tempered by a stark military reality, aptly articulated by former IDF chief of staff Yair Gola, ‘Anyone who has some understanding of the issue knows that it would be irresponsible for Israel to handle Iran without the US… You need to have the US with you.’ Israel possesses formidable military power, but a sustained campaign against a nation of Iran’s size, terrain and military capability required the logistical, intelligence and firepower of a global superpower. Netanyahu did not just want permission. He wanted a partner. He wanted the United States to do the job for Israel. The United States had no option to ignore.
On June 12, the campaign began. Understandably acting with the tacit ‘green signal’ from the United States, Israel launched a devastating, multi-pronged surprise attack. This was not a mere aerial raid. It was a masterstroke of modern warfare designed to decapitate and dismember Iran’s defensive capabilities in hours.
The first wave was not explosive but digital and clandestine attacks betrayed by the people within the Iranian society. Activated spies and saboteurs inside Iran, likely nurtured over years by intelligence agencies such as Mossad, went into action. Critical infrastructures were disrupted. Communication networks connecting Iran’s air defence command were damaged. Then, the physical blow fell. Swarms of Israeli drones and long-range missiles flying over the air space of Arab nations and through corridors created by the internal sabotage made things worse. Precision strikes targeted military leadership, killing key figures in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and throwing the chain of command into disarray. The objective was to blind and paralyse Iran in a surprise move, creating a state of chaos from which it could not recover.
The initial setbacks for Iran were severe. The loss of leadership and eyes across the sky was an unprecedented blow. Yet, the assumption that Iran would crumble proved to be a miscalculation. The Iranian military, long prepared for such a scenario, demonstrated a remarkable capacity for resilience and turn around.
Within a short time, Iran regrouped and recovered. Leveraging decentralised command structures and planned contingency protocols, they launched their salvos. The Iranian strategy relied on the asymmetric warfare that they have perfected — volume and saturation. Salvos of hundreds of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and drones were fired towards the Israeli territory. This was not a precision strike aimed solely at military targets. It was a full-forced retaliation to overwhelm, punish and terrify Israel.
The Iron Dome, David Sling and Arrow missile defence systems — the much-vaunted shield of Israel — were put to test. They performed admirably, intercepting a large percentage of the incoming projectiles. But no defence is impenetrable. Missiles and drones got through, struck military bases and infrastructures. The sound of sirens became a constant across the country, from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
As the war entered a terrifying stalemate, over a week of high-voltage exchange of barrages, Israel’s government grew desperately impatient. A prolonged war of attrition against a nation with Iran’s resource depth and proxy network and the enormous cost burden became a nightmare scenario. The initial goal of a swift, disabling blow had failed. Iran proved that it could and would hit back hard.
It was at this juncture that Netanyahu’s original imperative returned with renewed urgency, the need to have the US ‘with you.’ The campaign to pull the United States fully into the conflict intensified. The argument in Washington, amplified by a powerful Jews lobby in the Congress and aligned military top brasses, was compelling — only direct American intervention could ‘finish the war’ that Israel alone could not handle any more. The spectre of a prolonged conflict destabilising the entire globe, disrupting oil supplies and empowering other powers like China and Russia was hung before American policymakers. Netanyahu’s message to the Donald J Trump was clear: you are already involved; now you must act to finish it. The US president could not ignore the call.
On June 22, the United States, with its vast and unparalleled military might, entered the war directly. US Air Force B-2 Spirit and B-52 Stratofortress bombers, accompanied by fighter escorts, were launched from bases in the region and beyond. Their target was not the missile launchers hitting Israel, but the root cause of Israel’s concern — Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Sites at Natanz, Fordow, Isfahan and Arak were struck with bunker-busting munitions designed to penetrate deep into the earth. The objective was to set Iran’s nuclear programme back by a decade or more in a single night. The rationale, from a cold, military-strategic perspective was sound: destroy the primary strategic threat and eliminate Iran’s reason for continuing the fight.
The immediate military losses are staggering. Israel has suffered significant civilian and military casualties and the national psyche is scarred by the constant barrage. Iran has seen enemy from within in the room, its military leadership decimated, air defences crippled and nuclear ambitions buried under tonnes of rubble. The gamble between war and peace has been made. But the war is not over.
The long-term consequences are more profound. The United States has likely set the stage for a new, more dangerous phase. It has unequivocally taken Israel’s side in a hot war, shredding its pretence of being an honest and neutral peace broker and almost guaranteeing a wave of anti-American sentiment. As the dust settles over the ruins of Natanz or Fordow, the puzzle on the dash board was: what comes next?
Iran is unlikely to forego the humiliation and wounds. It is likely to be shaped by renewed military strength for a heavier retaliation. It is unlikely to forswear its nuclear ambition while Israel hides its nuclear weapon inventory under west’s ‘diplomatic dome.’ Therefore, the fatal gamble between war and peace could carry on plunging the entire region into a chaos from which it may not emerge.
Ìý
Mohammad Abdur Razzak ([email protected]), a retired commodore of Bangladesh Navy, is a security analyst and research director in the Osmani Centre for Peace and Security Studies.
