Story by Ben Westcott, Natalia Drozdiak and Jon Herskovitz
Jun 13, 2025
(Bloomberg) — Israel’s early-morning strikes against Iran’s nuclear program and ballistic-missile sites on Friday prompted the Islamic Republic to vow a “harsh blow” against both Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and the US, which denied any involvement.
The widespread attack across Iran, which sent oil prices surging, targeted nuclear sites and top military commanders. Iranian state television reported that the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Hossein Salami, was killed.
Here is a roundup of reaction from geopolitical experts, including their views on where things go from here:
Andrea Stricker, nonproliferation and biodefense program deputy director and research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies:
“To disable the facilities it would require multiple days of fighter jets dropping bombs or launching missiles at the sites, and they would ideally use heavy bunker buster bombs, in order to penetrate the facilities. Namely, the Fordow facility enrichment site is around 60 to 90 meters deep. And then the Iranians were also talking about bringing a new enrichment facility online that is around 100 or more meters deep under a mountain near Natanz.”
“To take out or disable the nuclear program, and set it back for a number of months to years, we’re talking really heavy bombs and multiple bombing runs over many days.”
“Ideally, they would have had the US involved because the US still has the heaviest bunker busters, but Israel has some that they could use on their own.”
On an Iranian counterattack:
“They will probably go for military sites, installations, bases, but there’s always the possibility that there were will target civilian cities and centers, if they really wanted to inflict terror on the population.”
“If or when Iran retaliates, we’ll see the US step in as they did in April of 2024 in October of 2024.”
Rodger Shanahan, Middle East expert and former Australian army officer, spoke on the worst-case scenario in terms of Iranian retaliation:
“An indiscriminate attack against civilian population areas in Israel. That would be the red line. That would be kind of a spiral of no return thing. If they targeted Israeli military bases, a like-for-like, they could target Israeli nuclear… people involved in the Israeli nuclear program, senior military officers. So I think if it was like-for-like, then it’s containable. If it’s indiscriminate, then that’s when you got in the kind of death spiral.”
Mara Rudman, University of Virginia professor and former deputy envoy and chief of staff for the Office of the Special Envoy for Middle East Peace at the State Department, spoke to Bloomberg Television:
“I think this is unlikely to be one-strike action by Israel given what the concerns are, what the objectives have been in terms of removing Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, and what it would take I believe with what Israel has available to them. I think people have to expect a long and extended campaign and one to which Iran would be responding in various ways.”
Bilahari Kausikan, Singapore’s former permanent secretary for foreign affairs and former chairman of the Middle East Institute:
“I think this will remain a regional conflict with most Sunni Arab states quietly siding with Israel. Although Iran may launch terrorist attacks world wide as part of its retaliation, it can only become a wider war if major powers get involved on Iran’s side. But the US and its allies will not play that role, while Russia is fully occupied in Ukraine and while China is a significant economic actor in the Gulf, its political, diplomatic and military policies in the Middle East are largely performative.”
How bad can it get? Not too bad I think. Its missiles have failed against Israel last year causing no significant damage and its forward defense assets Hezbollah and Hamas have been decimated. Tehran may cause more damage to Israel this time and attack softer targets in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain as well as shipping in the Gulf, but it will not be anything apocalyptic.”
Nicole Grajewski, fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on social media.
“If you were to ask the worst case scenario, this would be close to it — ongoing US-Iran talks (regardless of progress) and Israel acting on its own, targeting Iran’s military leadership along with civilian casualties only three days before US-Iran negotiations.”
“Iran’s retaliation will likely hinge on several factors: the scale of civilian casualties, whether key political or military leaders were targeted, and the extent of damage to its capabilities (conventional and nuclear). I think we may see Iran strike Israeli civilian sites.”
Jeffrey Lewis, a professor at the Middlebury Institute, posted this on social media about the impact of the strikes on Iran’s nuclear program:
“If Israel is striking Iran alone, I don’t see how it makes any long-term impact unless there something really special and/or surprising in the mix. Starting to think the play here is to destabilize the regime more than cripple the nuclear program. It’s quite a bet by the Israelis.”
Ankit Panda, a Stanton senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, posted on social media:
“Israel has said it is not seeking regime change, but is narrowly targeting nuclear capabilities, but if some rumored targets in Iran pan out (incl. Supreme National Security Council members), hard to see how that doesn’t look like a broader political war aim to the Iranians. Really dangerous.”
–With assistance from Philip J. Heijmans, Ryan Chua and Ramsey Al-Rikabi.
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.
