Listen to Lyse read this article
Following Israel’s unprecedented attack on Iran, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu directly addressed the Iranian people in English. He urged them to oppose what he termed an “evil and oppressive regime”.
Netanyahu declared that Israel’s military actions were intended to “clear the path for you to achieve your freedom.”
As the military conflict between Iran and Israel intensifies and expands, questions arise regarding Israel’s ultimate objectives.
Is the goal solely to eliminate, as Netanyahu stated on the first night of strikes, “the Islamic regime’s nuclear and ballistic missile threat”?
Was it also to scuttle further US-Iran negotiations aimed at a new deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief?
Or could the message to Iranians about freedom point to a larger goal of ending Iran’s clerical rule?
Netanyahu’s long tenure as Prime Minister has been marked by his persistent warnings about the dangers posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, from a bomb cartoon presented at the United Nations to his repeated assertion during the past 20 months of regional conflict that Iran constitutes the gravest threat.
American presidents and Netanyahu’s own generals have reportedly dissuaded him from ordering military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities on more than one occasion.
While US President Donald Trump denies giving a green light, even an implicit endorsement appears to have sufficed.
One Western official described Netanyahu’s approach as “all in,” emphasizing that Israel’s primary aim was to cripple Iran’s nuclear program.
This decision has drawn widespread condemnation from regional states and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose Director-General, Rafael Grossi, declared that “nuclear facilities must never be attacked, regardless of the context or circumstances.” Legal scholars have also denounced the strikes as violations of international law.
However, questions remain about whether Netanyahu’s goals align with those of his advisors and allies.
Dr Sanam Vakil, Director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, notes that “while Netanyahu has personally staked his fortunes on regime change, the Israeli political and military establishment are committed to profoundly setting back Iran’s nuclear program.” She adds, “The latter might be difficult but somewhat achievable; the former looks harder to deliver in a short and intensifying conflict.”
Netanyahu framed Israel’s operation as preemptive strikes against an existential threat, claiming Iran was “at the 90th minute” in developing a nuclear bomb. Western allies echoed his assertion that Tehran must not be allowed to cross this threshold, yet Netanyahu’s assessment of the timeline has been questioned.
Iran has consistently denied seeking to build a nuclear weapon. In March, the US Director of National Intelligence, Avril Haines, testified that the US intelligence community “continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon”.
The IAEA’s latest report stated that Iran had accumulated enough uranium enriched to 60% purity – a short technical step from weapons-grade – to potentially produce nine nuclear bombs.
Initial strikes targeted three key facilities: Natanz, Isfahan, and Fordow. The IAEA confirmed the destruction of a pilot fuel enrichment plant at Natanz. Damage to four “critical buildings” at Isfahan was also reported. Israel claims significant damage, while Iran describes it as limited.
Israel has also targeted “sources of knowledge” by assassinating at least nine nuclear scientists and numerous top military commanders. The target list, encompassing military bases, missile launch pads, and factories, now extends to economic and oil facilities.
Iran is retaliating, expanding its targets and resulting in increasing civilian casualties in both countries.
To significantly cripple Iran’s nuclear program, Israel would need to inflict substantial damage on Fordow, its heavily protected underground facility, where experts believe much near weapons-grade uranium is stored.
Israeli media reports indicate the aim is to cut off access to the facility. Lacking the necessary bunker-busting bombs, Israel might rely on US assistance, but significant damage would require multiple strikes.
Richard Nephew, a former US official and Iran expert at Columbia University, suggests that Netanyahu might seek US assistance, saying, “I think the most likely scenario is that Netanyahu will call Trump and say ‘I’ve done all this other work, I’ve made sure there is no threat to the B-2 bombers and to US forces but I can’t end the nuclear weapons programme.'” A Western official commented, “It’s still not clear which way President Trump will jump.”
Trump’s stance has fluctuated. Initially urging Israel to avoid military action, he later praised the strikes as “excellent” and hinted at further action, while also suggesting they might facilitate a deal.
A Sunday post on Truth Social declared, “We will have PEACE, soon, between Israel and Iran! Many calls and meetings now taking place.”
Iranian negotiators suspect the talks, scheduled to resume in Muscat, were a ploy to mask the impending Israeli attack. The surprise strikes caught Iran off guard.
Ellie Geranmayeh of the European Council on Foreign Relations suggests the timing was deliberate: “Israel’s unprecedented strikes were designed to kill President Trump’s chances of striking a deal to contain the Iranian nuclear programme… their timing and large-scale nature was intended to completely derail talks.”
Officials involved in the negotiations indicated last week that a deal was within reach, contingent upon the US relaxing its demand for Iran to completely cease enrichment. Tehran considered this a “red line.”
Following Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear deal, partly due to Netanyahu’s urging, Iran resumed enrichment beyond the agreed limits, leading to the current situation. The US had given Iran a 60-day window for a deal, a timeframe considered too short by mediators. Israel attacked on the 61st day.
“The Oman channel is dead for the time being,” says Dr Vakil. “But regional efforts are underway to de-escalate and find off ramps.”
From Tehran’s perspective, the escalation goes beyond nuclear capabilities. Vali Nasr, a professor of Middle East studies, argues Iran perceives Israel’s aim as “downgrading Iran’s capabilities as a state… and perhaps topple the Islamic Republic as a whole, if it can.”
Public reaction in Iran remains uncertain. Years of sanctions, corruption, and protests over economic hardship and social restrictions have created a volatile environment. Nasr suggests that while initial relief might have followed the targeting of unpopular generals, the broader attacks on civilian infrastructure will likely solidify opposition to Israel.
“I don’t see a scenario in which the majority of Iranians are going to side with an aggressor against their country while it’s bombing it, and somehow view that as liberation.”
Netanyahu’s rhetoric hints at broader objectives. He warned of strikes against “every site and every target of the ayatollah regime” and suggested regime change as a possible outcome.
Anshel Pfeffer, Israel correspondent for The Economist, suggests Netanyahu’s strategy involves exploiting the regime’s fears. Israeli intelligence, however, views predicting or engineering regime change as unrealistic.
Mr Pfeffer believes Netanyahu holds a distinct perspective: “I think there’s a good chance that Netanyahu… actually believes in the message; he is in a Churchillian mood.”
Reports emerged that President Trump recently vetoed an Israeli plan to assassinate Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Israeli officials, while emphasizing their focus isn’t on Iran’s political leadership, have also suggested the situation is time-sensitive.
Ultimately, the outcome will hinge on the unfolding confrontation and the unpredictable actions of the US President.
Daniel Levy, President of the US Middle East Project, concludes, “Success or failure is overwhelmingly being defined by whether the US can be dragged in… Only the US can bring this to a timely end-point in the near future by determining outcomes and stop points.”
Top picture credits: Anadolu via Getty, ATEF SAFADI/EPA – EFE/REX/Shutterstock
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
US strikes could involve using superior weaponry to hit an underground nuclear site, sources say.
India’s statement followed a phone call between Modi and Trump after the US president left the G7 summit.
The app was supposed to be banned in the US after its Chinese owner refused to sell it by a January deadline.
The tennis icon tells the BBC she doesn’t think a Trump-led government would let her in.
The longer Israel’s military operation goes on, the greater the realisation that Russia has much to lose.