On the Israel-Iran War and its fallout
- What triggered the 2025 Israel-Iran conflict, and how did the United States become involved? The 2025 conflict began with a calculated Israeli airstrike on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. With uranium enrichment nearing weapons-grade levels and diplomatic efforts stalled, Israeli leaders seized a narrow window for preemption. The United States, breaking from years of ambiguity, stepped in—not only to support an ally but to signal a willingness to act militarily when diplomacy fails. This marked a strategic shift. For students and scholars of international affairs, it’s a vivid example of how great power competition, nuclear nonproliferation, and regional alliances intersect in today’s volatile landscape.
- Has Israel succeeded in restoring a credible deterrent strategy against Iran? Yes, though at a considerable cost. Israel’s long-standing strategy of disruption—cyberattacks, assassinations, infrastructure sabotage—expanded after the 2023 Hamas attacks. In the past eighteen months, Israel has widened its operations to target Iran’s regional proxies and even struck deep within Iranian borders. The result is a fragile but effective restoration of deterrence. The implications for regional balance, and the ethical boundaries of preemptive strategy, are central to the debates we foster at the Hamilton Lugar School—where students examine not just the tactics of deterrence but also the human and diplomatic costs.
- How has Iran’s domestic political landscape shifted in response to recent U.S. and Israeli actions? Rather than reform, the regime has doubled down—recasting itself as a righteous victim and galvanizing nationalist support. Moderates have called for inclusion and reform but with little traction. For everyday Iranians, the toll is personal: lives caught between authoritarian rule and international escalation. Understanding this internal dimension—how foreign policy reverberates through domestic politics—is key to building a more informed and empathetic global citizenry, which is a central goal of our teaching and research.
- What has been the response of Iran's great power allies—Russia and China—to the war? Strategic silence. Russia and China condemned the strikes but stopped short of direct involvement. Moscow blames Western interference, while Beijing urges stability, wary of disruptions to energy flows. Both use Iran as a geopolitical pawn—supporting it just enough to check U.S. influence, but distancing themselves when risks grow. It’s a telling example of how shifting global alliances are defined less by ideology and more by opportunism—one of many complex dynamics students analyze in our classrooms and global policy labs.
- Is there still a viable diplomatic path forward between the United States and Iran? There is, but it is narrowing. Iran’s strategic assets have been compromised, and mutual trust is in ruins. Yet the regime’s primary aim—survival—still leaves room for negotiation. If the United States can provide credible assurances, a slim path may remain. This is the kind of hard-nosed realism our students grapple with: diplomacy not as idealism but as strategic necessity. In today’s fragmented world, training the next generation to navigate such challenges is more urgent—and more meaningful—than ever.
By Hamilton Lugar School Associate Professor Hussein Banai for Foreign Affairs.