You’ve probably heard already, but the mounting tensions between Iran and Israel have erupted into unrestrained war: on 13 June 2025, Israel launched Operation Rising Lion, striking key Iranian nuclear and military sites, including Natanz and Tehran’s District 18, in an effort to halt what Prime Minister Netanyahu called Iran’s imminent nuclear threat. The campaign killed over 220 people, including top Iranian military and nuclear figures. Iran retaliated with the long-awaited Operation True Promise 3, firing over 100 missiles at Israel, one of which struck a hospital in Beersheba. In response, Israel escalated further with missile strikes on Tehran—one of which struck the IRIB studio during a live broadcast—and later hitting Iran’s Khondab heavy water nuclear reactor (formerly known as Arak) before claiming full air superiority over the Islamic Republic.
Little less than a year ago, a slice from our mid-year dispatch documented how Israel had solidified its role as the primary kinetic force in its escalating conflict with Iran, shifting from covert sabotage to overt military strikes with its 1 April 2024 airstrike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus, killing top Iranian generals and provoking Iran’s first-ever direct missile and drone retaliation, to which Israel responded with a limited strike on the Iranian nuclear facility at Isfahan. The sudden death of Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi in a helicopter crash weeks later intensified speculation of Israeli involvement, further elevating Mossad’s reputation for covert reach. These actions, alongside ongoing tensions and the specter of cyber warfare, underscored Israel’s aggressive posture and pivotal influence over the region’s volatile security dynamics.
A further bulletin last year documented the mounting tensions that have now engulfed West Asia following Israel’s 26 October 2024 strike on Iran’s Parchin nuclear facility, which precipitated preparation of the aforementioned Operation True Promise 3 amidst considerable uncertainty regarding its timing. Our initial analyses highlighted Israel’s expansionist ambitions, Iran’s revolutionary legacy, and the U.S.’s enduring imperial interests, particularly under the then-incoming administration of President Donald Trump.
Subsequently, we traced the escalation in 2025, noting Iran’s retaliatory operations, the U.S. designation of Iran and its allies as security threats, and the intensification of military posturing by all actors involved. Despite official overtures toward renewed nuclear negotiations, diplomatic efforts faltered as Iran—supported by China and Russia—rejected U.S. deadlines, prompting significant deployments of American military assets and expansion of conflict zones, notably into Syria. These developments not only heightened the risk of widespread regional destabilization but have also imperiled global economic stability through potential disruptions in oil supplies.
Now, the U.S. has officially entered the conflict on behalf of Israel, despite reportedly claiming little more than a week ago that it would not provide offensive support, conducting airstrikes early Sunday morning local time on three key Iranian nuclear sites—Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—using B-2 stealth bombers launched not from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, where our bulletin from April reported more than a third of the bombers had been stationed, but instead from Missouri. Trump announced the “very successful attacks” via Truth Social, declaring the aircraft had exited Iranian airspace and calling for peace following the strikes. The move marks a historic escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran, now in its tenth day, and represents a sharp departure from past U.S. efforts to avoid direct intervention, provoking Iranian threats of retaliation and fears that the conflict could rapidly expand across the region.
Despite Trump's prior reluctance and a last-ditch diplomatic outreach through a potential backchannel meeting in Istanbul, failed contact with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ruhollah Khomeini led Trump to conclude that military action was necessary. (Surely it had nothing to do with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claim less than a week ago that the assassination attempts on Trump from last July and September were Iranian plots, doubling down on allegations covered in our bulletin from last December.) Trump had increasingly questioned Israel’s ability to neutralize Iran’s fortified facilities without U.S. support and ultimately decided to act unilaterally (supposedly) to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons after a week of Israeli operations aimed at dismantling Iran’s air defenses and offensive missile capabilities. While Iran has yet to officially acknowledge the attacks, U.S. and Israeli officials emphasized the strategic necessity of American involvement, noting that only U.S. bombers carrying 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs capable of destroying Iran’s deeply buried nuclear infrastructure.
While Israel was notified in advance, the strikes introduce significant risks of Iranian retaliation against American forces in the region, with Trump’s direct intervention in the war having dramatically escalated the conflict and drawn the U.S. into a volatile regional war. Though Trump claims to have “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, the true extent of the damage is unclear, and Iran has vowed to continue its nuclear activities. Israel, which had pushed for U.S. support, claims the strikes set Iran back years and applauds the escalation. However, the move has drawn sharp international condemnation, with the UN warning of catastrophic consequences and analysts warning it could either entrench or destabilize the Iranian regime. Domestically, Trump faces fierce backlash for bypassing Congress, prompting bipartisan accusations of constitutional violations and even calls for impeachment.
As fears mount over regional retaliation, oil markets panic, and anti-war protests spread in the U.S., Israel remains central to a widening crisis that now threatens global stability. Netanyahu opened his latest address not in Hebrew to his own people, but in English, directing praise toward U.S. President Donald Trump for launching strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites—an action Netanyahu long advocated. For over 15 years, Netanyahu pushed American leaders to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program, insisting only the U.S.’s bunker-busting bombs could penetrate Iran's fortified facilities.
With the recent U.S. intervention, Netanyahu may now claim his primary war aim has been achieved, potentially marking a turning point in the conflict. However, Iran insists it had already moved its nuclear material, casting doubt on the strategic impact. While Israel might have continued a slower campaign on its own, the decisive U.S. strike gave Netanyahu a symbolic victory. The broader question now is how Iran and its allies—such as the Houthis—will respond. With American interests in the region newly exposed, and the U.S. signaling it does not seek regime change, the Middle East stands on edge, uncertain whether this moment signals de-escalation or the start of a far deadlier phase in the war.
For its own part, the U.S. seems to be signaling a preference for de-escalation. Earlier this morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth asserted that the recent U.S. strikes were not aimed at regime change but at neutralizing perceived threats from Iran’s nuclear program. While the Pentagon emphasized restraint and a desire to avoid escalation, Tehran responded by firing missiles at Israel, though it has so far held back from major retaliation against U.S. forces. The U.S. has repositioned military assets and reinforced defenses in the region amid fears of broader conflict, including threats to the vital Strait of Hormuz, while officials stressed the campaign is not open-ended but will continue if American interests are attacked.
In this fraught moment, the balance between catastrophe and containment rests delicately in Iran’s hands. Though Trump warned Iran against retaliation, the world still watches for Tehran’s next move. Wounded by Israeli bombardment and now American intervention, Iran now faces immense pressure to respond, yet options are limited. With their missile stockpiles drawn down and facing the looming threat of U.S. escalation, hardliners urge retaliation while moderates may seek restraint to avoid a broader conflict. Iran could strike U.S. bases, target Gulf oil infrastructure, or attempt symbolic gestures to save face.
Some argue that, for Khomeini, each path carries grave risks—military defeat or domestic collapse. (The latter would align with Tarot by Fergus’s reading from our spectacle at the start of the year.) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that Israel's military campaign against Iran could lead to regime change, calling Iran's government “very weak” and suggesting a majority of Iranians would oust their leaders if given the chance. Israel’s strikes have gone beyond targeting nuclear infrastructure, hitting military and media sites in an apparent attempt to destabilize the regime and encourage internal dissent. Others, however, argue that Iran’s core institutions remain intact, and despite significant losses—including the deaths of senior commanders and vulnerability in key strategic sites—opposition groups are fragmented and lack traction inside the country. Contrary to his Defense Secretary, Trump has hinted at support for regime change but remains ambiguous, with his administration divided over deeper involvement.
Meanwhile, having pressed its long-standing campaign to its logical conclusion, Israel stands emboldened by American military backing. The U.S., once a reluctant actor, is now an active belligerent in a rapidly widening war, with its forces, assets, and global credibility at stake. Iran, wounded but not broken, may face a crucible: retaliate and risk annihilation, or restrain and risk collapse from within. With regional proxies weakened, global markets rattled, and diplomacy all but extinguished, the stakes have never been higher. Whether this marks the climax of a decade-long standoff or the opening salvo of a much broader conflagration depends not just on Tehran’s next move—but on the world’s collective ability to pull back from the brink.