5 key questions on Israel's strikes, Iran's response, and the risk of a wider war
Israel targeted nuclear and military sites in Iran in airstrikes early Friday morning.
The strikes are a major escalation that threatens to expand into a wider regional conflict.
These are five key questions in the wake of Israel's air war.
Israel's widespread airstrikes on Iran effectively damaged the country's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, which officials said was a primary goal.
The strikes hit over 100 targets, including Iran's air defense systems, missile launchers, and senior military leadership.
Now, all eyes are on Tehran's response and the specter of a wider conflict. And there are questions over whether the US will get pulled into the fight.
Here are some main questions stemming from the attacks.
How has Iran responded?
Iran initially responded to the attack by firing 100 drones at Israel on Friday, which the Israel Defense Forces said were mostly intercepted.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Israel "should anticipate a severe punishment" in response to the strikes, and that Iran "won't let them go unpunished."
Hours later, the IDF said Iran had launched "dozens" of missiles at Israel in what appeared to be several waves. The military said its air defenses were actively intercepting threats, and video footage captured several impacts.
"The Iranian response might be delayed or split into multiple phases," said Matthew Savill, the director of military sciences at the UK-based Royal United Services Institute think tank.
"But their main weapon will be ballistic missiles," he added, "which have the best chance of inflicting damage on Israel, whereas drone and cruise missile attacks will face more extensive Israeli defences."
It is not unprecedented for Iran to launch powerful weapons at Israel; Tehran fired hundreds of missiles and drones at its foe in April and October last year. However, those strikes were mostly intercepted by Israel and its allies, including the US.
Beyond direct strikes, another way that Iran could retaliate is through the so-called "Axis of Resistance," a vast network of militias it is aligned with throughout the region, including Lebanon's Hezbollah and Yemen's Houthis.
Israel has been battling these forces, and Hamas in Gaza, since the October 7, 2023, attacks.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has long advocated for destroying Iran's nuclear program, which Tehran claims is for civilian purposes.
The US, however, has been trying to reach a new deal with Iran (and has threatened violence if a deal isn't done). The strikes could derail those efforts and even goad Iran into racing to build a nuclear arsenal.
Could this trigger a wider conflict?
Israel's strikes threaten to spark a wider regional conflict, analysts at London's Chatham House think tank warned Friday.
"Far from being a preventive action, this strike risks triggering a broader regional escalation and may inadvertently bolster the Islamic Republic's domestic and international legitimacy," Sanam Vakil, Chatham House's Middle East and North Africa program director, said.
Last year, Tehran reportedly threatened to target Gulf state oil facilities if they allowed Israel access to their airspace for strikes against Iran. It's unclear what routes Israeli aircraft used in the attacks, but there's been speculation Israel could exploit the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria to get its aircraft directly over Iraq for strikes.
Russia is also a close ally of Iran, and the two have increased their defense cooperation since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
However, Nikita Smagin, an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment, said in December that the Kremlin is unlikely to come to Iran's direct aid in order to avoid direct confrontations with Israel and the US.
Will the US be pulled into a fight?
The US has helped arm and defend Israel, notably in the wake of Hamas' October 7 attacks. The world will be watching to see how President Donald Trump responds.
Trump has sought to broker a new nuclear deal with Iran, and in the wake of the Israeli attacks overnight, warned of "even more brutal" strikes from Israel if Iran refuses a new agreement.
Last year, the US Navy helped shoot down Iranian missiles fired at Israel in two major attacks, and it has rotated multiple aircraft carriers and many warships into the region since 2023, in a show of support for Israel and to deter its enemies, including Iran.
The US and other NATO countries have also defended international shipping routes in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden from attacks by the Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen.
What forces does the US have in the region?
The US has a substantial military presence in the Middle East, including naval forces, ground troops, and strike aircraft.
A Navy spokesperson told BI that the Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group — consisting of an aircraft carrier, a cruiser, and three destroyers — is in the Arabian Sea.
There are also three American destroyers in the Red Sea and another in the Eastern Mediterranean.
All of these warships, and the carrier's dozens of embarked aircraft, are capable of carrying out air defense missions to defeat incoming drones and missiles.
Were the strikes effective?
IDF spokesperson Brig. Gen. Effie Defrin said Israel's strikes "significantly harmed" Iran's main uranium enrichment site at Natanz.
"For many years, the people of the Iranian regime made an effort to obtain nuclear arms in this facility," he said, adding that the site "has the necessary infrastructure to enrich uranium to a military grade."
The International Atomic Energy Agency has confirmed the site was struck, but the extent of the damage remains unverified.
Satellite imagery appeared to show significant damage at the surface level.
There was also a report Friday that Israel had struck Fordow, a nuclear fuel enrichment site guarded deep under a mountain.
Overnight, Israeli strikes reportedly targeted strategic Iranian sites, including the Natanz nuclear facility, Iran's primary center for uranium enrichment. High-resolution imagery from @AirbusDefence, captured on June 13, 2025, reveals significant damage to the facility. pic.twitter.com/L7y9V64NIq
— Open Source Centre (@osc_london) June 13, 2025
The IDF said that Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps chief Hossein Salami and other senior military commanders were also killed in targeted strikes.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
44 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Israel Sends 'Urgent Warning' for Iranian Citizens To Evacuate
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Israel has issued an "urgent warning to Iranian citizens" to evacuate areas close to Iran's military sites after fresh exchanges of strikes between the two countries overnight raised fears of further escalation. Anyone near areas linked to Tehran's military "should immediately leave these areas and not return until further notice," the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a post to its Persian-language account on Sunday. Israel carried out a wave of airstrikes on Iran late on Thursday it described as a "pre-emptive" and "combined offensive" on the country based on "high-quality intelligence." Missiles illuminate the night sky during an Iranian missile attack in Jerusalem, early Sunday, June 15, 2025. Missiles illuminate the night sky during an Iranian missile attack in Jerusalem, early Sunday, June 15, 2025. AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean The operation, dubbed "Rising Lion," killed several high-ranking Iranian commanders — including the head of Iran's armed forces — and scientists connected to Iran's nuclear program. Iran's representative to the United Nations said on Friday 78 people had been killed and over 300 more injured. Iran vowed to respond, launching barrages of missiles and attack drones at Israel. This is a breaking story. More updates to follow.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fur imported and sold in UK should be banned
Fur imported and sold in the UK should be banned, an MP has said. While fur farming has been banned in Wales and England since 2000, many types of fur are still legally imported and sold. Ruth Jones, Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn, has introduced a Private Members' Bill to Parliament that would prohibit the import and sale of new fur products. The British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) accused Jones of being the "wardrobe police", adding the ban would be "unenforceable and unworkable" and may breach trade agreements with the EU and the US. How my challenge to stop buying new clothes has gone Designer brings Welsh myths to London Fashion Week Miners' strike designs help Welsh fashion find voice Jones said: "Twenty years ago, a Labour government banned fur farming because it was cruel and inhumane. "If we think it's cruel and inhumane to farm it, why are we importing it? It doesn't make sense." The MP added: "Caged animals are kept in dreadful, inhumane conditions just to provide fur for a declining industry. "Faux fur could do the job just as well." Sonul Badiani-Hamment, UK director for animal welfare organisation Four Paws, recently presented a petition with one-and-a-half million signatures in support of a fur-free Britain, alongside other campaigners. "There isn't any justification for the cruelty experienced by these animals on fur farms," she said. "Country after country are leaving the market. Sweden recently committed to decommissioning the fur trade entirely." The British Fashion Council attended one of the campaign group's events in Parliament to support the proposed bill, she said. Ms Badiani-Hamment said she had noticed the fashion industry changing, adding there were "very few designers left in the country handling fur". "It's just not desirable." But Mel Kaplan, who works at Vintage Fur Garden in London, said demand for vintage fur was growing. "We have queues going out the door in the winter," she said. "Over the past three years, there's been a resurgence in the want for vintage fur. "I think younger people especially are looking more to vintage clothing in general. I think fast fashion has taken a decline in popularity." Furriers in the UK sell a variety of fur that has been imported from other countries. The import or export of cat and dog fur, and products containing their fur, is banned. There is also a ban on selling cat and dog fur in the UK market. The new bill calls for a ban on all new fur being imported or sold in the UK and would not apply to vintage items. Ms Kaplan said all the coats and jackets in their store were from the 1950s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. The shop has a rigorous process when acquiring fur products to ensure that what they are selling is vintage, not new fur, she added. Ms Kaplan also said vintage fur was sustainable, adding: "If it were to be discarded, it would go back into the earth, everything - all the fibres and the fur is natural. "I don't support the making of new furs, I don't support the farming and I don't support the sale of it, but I can get behind a piece that was already made with the intention of being worn so it can carry on being worn." In a statement, the BFTA warned that a ban could cost thousands of skilled British jobs. "Standards in the fur sector are among the highest of any form of animal husbandry with rigorous and comprehensive animal welfare standards, third-party inspection and strict international and national laws," it said. "Fur is popular as evidenced by the number of young people choosing to wear it who are rejecting oil-based fast fashions often made in sweatshop conditions. "MPs like Ruth Jones should respect that others are happy to wear high-welfare fur, rather than acting like the wardrobe police." The second reading of the bill is expected to take place in Parliament on 4 July. Meanwhile, the UK government said it was building a "clear evidence base to inform future action", with an updated animal welfare strategy due to be published later this year. French fashion giant to ban use of fur Queen Camilla will buy no more real-fur items Soaring cost of King's Guards' real fur bearskin caps revealed
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits The high court unanimously said courts can't use a higher standard to block suits for damages for some disability discrimination claims and not others. But they declined to set the standard. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News WASHINGTON – Disability rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court on June 12 made it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools for damages. Not only did all the justices agree that some courts were using too tough a standard to block lawsuits like one brought by a Minnesota teenager with a rare form of epilepsy, but they also rejected her school's argument that the real issue is the standard is too lax for other types of disability discrimination claims. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line,' Shira Wakschlag, an attorney with The Arc of the United States, said in a statement after the decision. But the court didn't settle the larger issue of what the standard should be in all cases. The justices only said there shouldn't be different standards for discrimination claims involving educational instruction. And two of the court's six conservatives – Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh – said the school raised 'serious arguments' that courts are getting that standard wrong. In a concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that he hopes 'lower courts will carefully consider whether the existing standards comport with the Constitution and the underlying statutory text.' Two of the court's three liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – pushed back, saying the school's argument that a person with a disability must prove there was an intent to discriminate is clearly wrong. 'The statutes' text and history, as well as this Court's precedent, foreclose any such purpose requirement,' Sotomayor wrote in a concurring opinion. More: In unanimous decision, Supreme Court makes it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools How the case got to the Supreme Court The issue in the Minnesota case was whether the school failed to accommodate the special needs of Ava Tharpe, whose rare form of epilepsy makes it difficult to attend school in the morning. Federal courts agreed with the family that the school hadn't done enough and needed to provide evening instruction. But the courts said the Tharpes couldn't use the Americans with Disabilities Act to try to get the school to pay for outside teachers and other expenses incurred before they won their case. And they said the Tharpes couldn't use the Rehabilitation Act to seek a court order binding the school to teach Ava after regular school hours. Judges on the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits to go forward involving educational services for children with disabilities. That's a tougher standard than the 'deliberate indifference' rule often used when weighing other types of disability discrimination claims. The school argued that 'deliberate indifference' is too lax. Their lawyers said the plain text of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination. What the Supreme Court decided The Supreme Court said they couldn't consider that argument because they'd only been asked to decide whether the lower courts were correct to apply a 'uniquely stringent' standard for cases like Ava's – not to decide what the standard should be in all cases. 'We will not entertain the (school) District's invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. Thomas said he agreed that it wouldn't have been right for the court to take on the larger issue with its significant ramifications for disability rights. But in his concurring opinion that Kavanaugh joined, Thomas said he'd be willing to do so in an 'appropriate case.' 'Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard under two widely utilized federal statutes is an issue of national importance,' he wrote, 'and the (school) District has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect.'
