As Israel and Iran were already exchanging missile strikes and conducting airstrikes, the situation in West Asia further deteriorated following United States’s attack on three Iranian nuclear facilities — Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan — on June 22. Against this backdrop, Organiser Assistant Editor Ravi Mishra spoke exclusively with Joseph Rozen — Geopolitical Strategist, Senior Fellow at the Misgav Institute for National Security, and former member of the Israeli National Security Council — to understand the future course of the war and its geopolitical implications in West Asia. Excerpts:
The Israel-Iran war erupted after Israel first targeted Iranian military facilities. Since then, both countries in West Asia been engaged in fighting. Later, the US also bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities. Subsequently, Iran retaliated by targeting US bases in Qatar and Iraq. And then suddenly US President Donald Trump announced a ceasefire on June 24. This was a dramatic event. What led to the ceasefire?
Israel’s decision to launch preemptive strikes against Iran’s military nuclear facilities came after two critical diplomatic avenues had been exhausted. Firstly, 60 days of US-mediated negotiations with Iran in Oman failed to produce any effective agreement or mechanism that could guarantee Iran would never acquire nuclear weapons. Secondly, recent IAEA inspections once again exposed Iranian deception and violations of their commitments to international nuclear oversight. Facing this diplomatic deadlock, Israel concluded it had no alternative but to take immediate military action to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold—something intelligence suggested was just weeks, possibly days, away. Israel’s strikes focused on Iranian military infrastructure: IRGC facilities, nuclear programme sites, missile installations, and key regime institutions. Iran’s response, however, revealed the true character of the regime. Rather than targeting military assets, Iran launched explosive drones and ballistic missiles directly at civilian areas, including a major hospital in Beer Sheva and the Weizmann Institute of Science. This deliberate targeting of civilian and scientific infrastructure demonstrated Iran’s fundamentally terrorist nature and reinforces why only a comprehensive solution ensuring a nuclear-free Iran—including the elimination of its ballistic missile capabilities—can be acceptable. The involvement of US forces has been crucial. Had the Israeli Air Force been forced to operate alone, this campaign would likely have required significantly more time to achieve its objectives. Once the US joined Israel and attacked three of the nuclear sites in Iran, it paved a way to end it swiftly. It was important for Trump to end it, because the goals were achieved. He portrays himself as a deal maker who ends wars, and the pressure from his MAGA camp was growing stronger to end this. Trump even enabled the Iranians a dignified exit, by coordinating an attack on US bases in the Middle East.
Did Israel achieve its objective in this operation?
Prime Minister Netanyahu officially stated that Israel has achieved the goals of this operation. Having said that, the Islamist radical regime is still controlling Iran, and it’s only a matter of time until it tries again to develop a military nuclear programme.Therefore, any future arrangement with Iran on the nuclear issue should take into account the current conditions. Meaning, if there’s a violation by Iran, Israel (with the backing of the US) should react immediately and signal Iran that no more games are allowed with nuclear weapons.
After the US attack, Iran decided to close the Strait of Hormuz, which is the main source of oil import for Europe. Will this move have global implications?
Iran’s fixation on Israel’s destruction and its nuclear weapons development toward that end has left the regime in an increasingly difficult position. Iran has threatened that it will close the Strait of Hormuz; but even before the ceasefire, I questioned whether such a move would serve Iran’s strategic interests. Blocking this critical waterway would prove counterproductive, as it would severely impact China’s economic interests and potentially cost Iran one of its most important diplomatic allies at a time when international support is already limited. President Trump was also sceptical of the feasibility of such a move and sarcastically told Iran and China that they can keep trading in oil.
Iranian missiles have also damaged various parts of Israel, including civilian areas. This is the first time such an attack has occurred in Israel.
As I mentioned, Iran’s targeting of civilian areas—the hospital and cancer research centre—represents a clear pattern of terrorist behaviour, not an isolated incident. This marks the third time that Iran has directly attacked Israel, following similar assaults in April and October 2024. In those previous strikes, the Iranian regime launched hundreds of rockets and drones indiscriminately across Israeli territory, making no distinction whatsoever between military installations and civilian populations. Virtually the entire country fell within the strike zone of these weapons—a textbook definition of terrorism. But Iran’s terrorist activities extend far beyond these direct attacks. For years, the regime has orchestrated a campaign of terror against Israelis and Jews through its extensive proxy network: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias operating throughout Iraq and Syria, and the Houthis in Yemen. This isn’t just regional warfare—it’s global terrorism.
Could you elaborate on Israel’s demands?
Israel’s demands are clear: the complete dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear programme and ballistic missile capabilities. Together, these represent an existential threat that Israel simply cannot tolerate. Regime change is not among Israel’s stated military objectives. However, such an outcome would undoubtedly transform the region for the better, not just for Israel, but for the Iranian people themselves and the broader international community.
“Israel has achieved the goals of this operation. the Islamist radical regime is still controlling Iran, and it’s only a matter of time until it tries again to develop a military nuclear programme”
What if Iran doesn’t agree to the demands?
The strategic reality has fundamentally changed, and under these new circumstances. It has little choice but to accept the demands being placed before it—exactly what President Trump has called for: Iran’s surrender. Even well-intentioned but ultimately naive diplomatic efforts by various European leaders have failed to produce any meaningful breakthrough with this regime. President Trump’s decision to attack Iran’s nuclear sites might push the regime in the right direction. Iran no longer holds any cards in this game. The regime that once thought it could dictate terms and play for time while advancing its nuclear program now finds itself in a position where it can only react to demands, not make them. The balance of power has shifted decisively, and Tehran knows it.
Is Israel confident that Iran is developing nuclear weapons?
Both Israel and the international community reached the same unavoidable conclusion based on overwhelming evidence. Successive IAEA reports documented systematic Iranian violations, particularly uranium enrichment to levels that removed any ambiguity about their intentions. The agency’s warnings were stark: Iran had accumulated enough enriched uranium to approach weapons-grade material and could potentially produce at least eight nuclear bombs. The numbers tell the story. For legitimate civilian nuclear programmes, uranium enrichment of 3 per cent to 5 per cent is sufficient. Iran, however, has stockpiled over 400 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 per cent—a level that serves no civilian purpose whatsoever. More alarming still, the technical leap from 60 per cent to the 90 per cent enrichment required for nuclear weapons is a matter of roughly two weeks with their current capabilities.
Iranian military officers and scientists were reportedly killed in Israel’s operation. Now, there’s a debate whether Iran, as a sovereign nation, should have been attacked in this way. Your take on this?
Let me be clear: the evidence is overwhelming and undeniable. When you have comprehensive intelligence, documented IAEA violations, a massive stockpile of highly enriched uranium with no civilian justification, and a regime that repeatedly declares its intention to destroy you—combined with the complete failure of diplomatic efforts—waiting is not an option. Action becomes a moral imperative. Israel made the correct decision, not just for its own survival, but for global security. This isn’t about Israeli aggression or regional politics—it’s about preventing a terrorist state from acquiring the ultimate weapon. The Iranian regime operates as a terrorist organisation that happens to control a country, and the international community must finally acknowledge this reality and respond accordingly. When facing an existential threat backed by genocidal intent, you do not negotiate—you eliminate the threat.
Don’t you think the world should/should have also scrutinised Pakistan like Iran?
I agree. Many overlook this similarity, as Pakistan and Iran use terror proxies as execution arms of the state. Moreover, the idea of such terror countries with nuclear capabilities is frightening. A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist, who is considered the father of the Pakistani nuclear bomb, also provided Iran, Libya, and North Korea with nuclear technologies and know-how. Khan created a proliferation network that destabilised global security for decades. The Western response, mainly by the US, has been woefully inadequate. Pakistan became nuclear in 1998 during Clinton’s presidency, yet Washington continued pouring aid into Islamabad while neglecting democratic Bharat, especially during Kerry’s tenure as Secretary of State. This policy of containing the problem instead of solving it led to similar mistakes vis-à-vis Iran. Now, the global community, particularly the US and Europe, has an opportunity to rectify the situation. Not only to make sure that Iran will never obtain nuclear weapons, but also to better secure and inspect the nuclear arsenal in the hands of Pakistan. The combination of an unstable and radical Islamist regime with nuclear capabilities is a global threat and should be addressed accordingly. While Pakistan has not used its arsenal yet, and hopefully it won’t; Iran must be stopped before it reaches the status of Pakistan. Another concern is the growing relations between Iran, Pakistan, and Turkey. The response should be – deepening the Israel-India partnership. Both face radical Islamic terrorism and share democratic values—a natural alliance that could balance this trend.
Do you think a weakened Iran will also weaken its proxies and terrorist organisations like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis?
The two go hand in hand. The Israeli pre-emptive attacks were also successful because of Israel’s achievements in the war against Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel destroyed Iran’s web of proxies that were meant to assist Iran in attacking Israel and protecting the IRGC. Without the proxies, Iran was left exposed to the Israeli operation. Moreover, the Iranian regime will have to allocate resources to its agencies and institutions, meaning less or nothing for its proxies.
Comments