The US enters Israel’s war with Iran — MEI experts react

The United States struck three nuclear facilities in Iran on the evening of June 21, in the midst of the ongoing Israel-Iran conflict. MEI scholars provide real-time analysis to help make sense of what this escalation means and what might come next.

This publication will be updated as additional submissions come in. 

 

"A very big gamble"

“This is a very big gamble on our part, coming on top of Israel's great gamble. We will only know if it succeeded if we can get through the next 3-5 years without this Iranian regime acquiring nuclear weapons, which they now have compelling reasons to want. Preventing that has to be America's (and Israel's) highest priority now.”

— Kenneth M. Pollack, VP for Policy, MEI

 

"A tidal shift for regional dynamics"

“Trump's decision to strike Iran's nuclear program represents a tidal shift for regional dynamics going forward, as Iran's regime is now to all extents and purposes locked into a war not just with Israel, but with the US too. For years, conventional wisdom behind closed Defense Department doors held that the US couldn't destroy Iran's nuclear program, only set it back to some degree. The theory went that the most sensitive sites were too deep underground, too reinforced, and potentially sufficiently dispersed to allow for a total destruction of vast facilities in which the fissile material itself might be the size of several bowling balls. The only way around that conundrum would have been a near-suicidal mission of invading mountain fortresses like Fordow and destroying them from within. 

That raises the question of just what was dropped tonight, and how can we measure the effect. Iran has also had a week to attempt to move materials to other sites to protect them from potential US strikes. 

Going forward, will Iran's regime feel under sufficient pressure to negotiate, or will it lash out? US bases in the region appear to have been drawn down in recent days as a precaution, and embassies are on alert. From October 2023 to November 2024, Iran's proxies in Iraq and Syria targeted US bases more than 250 times — that could well resume once again. Security in Baghdad will be on a knife-edge tonight, after Iran's most powerful proxies spent the last few days threatening to resume attacks. Iran and/or the Houthis could also choose to target America's Gulf allies as a soft underbelly, knowing well how such attacks could seriously complicate US regional relationships and put Trump in a very difficult place. 

The next 24 hours will likely indicate where things are headed — towards de-escalation or a further spiral."

— Charles Lister, Senior Fellow, MEI

 

"Iran may well have pre-emptively dispersed some nuclear assets"

“Given that the strike was long anticipated, Iran may well have pre-emptively dispersed some nuclear assets — enriched-uranium stockpiles and advanced centrifuge cascades — to alternate sites, hoping to reconstitute the program if the government survives the current war."

— Mohammed Soliman, Senior Fellow, MEI

 

"The region's fears have come to pass"

"The rest of the region's fears have come to pass. If the US can indicate to Iran that the bombing was limited solely to the nuclear targets, and there will be no further attacks, that might leave the Iranian regime with some room to save face and negotiate with the US. If not, we are likely to see an escalating spiral of violence that may suck in regional allies, forcing them to do something that, to date, they have refused to do — choose sides. While ostensibly, there will be little support for Iran, especially in the Gulf, Syria, and Lebanon, in fact, the region's relations with the US have just become more complicated."

— Mirette Mabrouk, Senior Fellow, MEI

 

"The tail wagging the dog"

"The region will interpret this as the tail wagging the dog. The notion that the United States makes it decisions based on its own interests and on behalf of regional stability will be seen as pure nonsense. In the aftermath of this we might see other global powers step up to be the adults in the room in cleaning up the mess that will likely ensue from these attacks. But more than likely this will bode poorly for the nascent political rebuilding processes in Syria and Lebanon, not to mention the Ukraine war."

— Ross Harrison, Senior Fellow, MEI

 

"It is more than a crime; it is a political fault"

“To paraphrase Joseph Fouché, 'It is more than a crime; it is a political fault.' The US bombing of these Iranian nuclear sites will in all probability not lead Iran to capitulate to the maximalist demands of the US and Israel, and is more likely to lead to Iranian escalatory actions and greater regional destabilization."

— Alan Eyre, Distinguished Diplomatic Fellow, MEI

 

"A staggering but not mortal blow"

“This is a staggering but not mortal blow to the Islamic Republic. They had already lost their forward defenses, mainly Hezbollah; their capacity to deter Israel or the US; their ability to defend the Iranian homeland; and now they’ve largely lost their much-vaunted nuclear program, at least for the next several years. 

They now have three options, none of them appealing. First, they could escalate against US bases and other targets in the Gulf, making the US, its Gulf partners, and the global economy pay a price; but this will only ensure a more massive and sustained American and Israeli campaign against the regime, and is not in their interest. 

A second option is to come to the negotiating table, try to save what is left, and end the onslaught against them; but this would be a major and obvious climb down for them, and would mean a massive loss of face and prestige. 

The third option, which might be the most likely, is that they grin and bear it, implement some performative limited retaliation against the US, as they did after the killing of Qassem Soleimani, but avoid major escalation, and hope that the Americans and Israelis — now that they’ve hit their main targets — will wind down their campaign. In this third scenario, they can maintain their defiant tone and pivot to the intense repair and recovery work that they have to do for the next many years to figure out their strategic way forward and to try to ensure regime survival.”

— Paul Salem, Senior Fellow, MEI 

 

"The region begins a new transition"

“Now the region begins a new transition. Iran has levers of terror, of threats, of possession of nuclear materials it can deploy to threaten Israel, Americans, Jews around the world, and most immediately its Arab neighbors. The regime will transition and transform, but we don't know yet in what ways or at what pace. And American foreign policy in the Middle East now will hinge on its commitment to Israel. Our shared hopes for economic transformation and shared investment with the Gulf states take second place now to the trajectory of a weakened, cornered Iran. Time is on Iran's side, at least for now.”

— Karen Young, Senior Fellow, MEI

 

"The familiar playbook of de-escalation for de-escalation’s sake is obsolete"

“Since the Iraq war, conventional thinking in Washington has held that some of the world’s hardest problems have no military solutions and that de-escalation is an end, not a means — a principle that became more doctrine than debate. The Islamic Republic, for its part, never played by the no-military-solutions rulebook. Instead, it combined — much to the detriment of the Arab capitals it battered into submission — targeted violence with diplomatic maneuvering to position itself as the region’s inevitable security hegemon that would supplant a reluctant United States. But the systematic battering of the pillars that enabled Iran to project power carries implications far beyond whatever happens next in this conflict. When paper tigers burn, leaders long frustrated by the failures of passive diplomacy become convinced there is only one way to deal with a Gordian knot. With new means for military powers to leverage the use of force without incurring the domestic costs that previously restrained it, one thing is certain: The familiar playbook of de-escalation for de-escalation’s sake is obsolete. If diplomacy is to survive — as it must — in a world at war, it must recognize that power still matters and offer what war, even when successful, cannot: a sustainable day after.”

— Fadi Nicholas Nassar, Senior Fellow, MEI

 

"A new and dangerous phase of confrontation"

“If Iran retains any capabilities — missiles, drones, proxies, cyber, or terror cells — it now has little reason not to use them. A direct US strike on its nuclear facilities shatters prior restraints and pressures Tehran to respond forcefully. Expect asymmetric retaliation. A new and dangerous phase of confrontation is likely underway.” 

— John Calabrese, Senior Fellow, MEI

 

“Strait of Hormuz represents only one potential chokepoint for a major energy disruption”

"Oil prices will spike again when trading begins in a few hours, since this move adds yet more volatility to a situation that had already threatened oil and gas supplies from the Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz will, understandably, be under a microscope after US intervention and given Iran’s longstanding threats to act on this key chokepoint. But an increasingly volatile situation could yield unexpected disruptions around critical export infrastructure in the region, whether these would be caused intentionally or otherwise. Markets will be on edge until there is greater certainty as to how Iran may respond."   

— Colby Connelly, Senior Fellow, MEI

 

Photo by Carlos Barria - Pool/Getty Images