These questions are often ignored in the Israel-Iran story. We asked a panel of experts

Middle East Eye

15 hours ago

Israel's attacks on Iran on Friday and the killing of several high-level figures in its military and science sectors have roiled the region.
Tensions between the two nations are well-documented and longstanding, and both the US and Israel have carried out attacks like this, albeit on a smaller scale, on other prominent Iranian figures in the past.
But why does this keep happening, and how is the US trying to distance itself from it?
Can Israel go this far without expecting its own officials to be targeted? And exactly how dangerous is it to strike nuclear facilities on either side?
Middle East Eye put the lesser-asked questions to five experts on international relations, conflict, nuclear proliferation, and the region at large.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Here is what they said, edited for length and clarity.
If the US was informed ahead of time and also supplied weapons to Israel, how can Secretary of State Marco Rubio say the US was not involved?
Jamal Abdi, President, National Iranian American Council: "This is about creating a narrative of plausible deniability to potentially give Iran a face-saving way to continue talking to the United States [towards a new nuclear deal]. I don't think it's going to work, and I think Trump has already stepped all over that by now, basically taking credit, after seeming to distance the US."
Anthony Wanis-St John, conflict resolution specialist, American University: "It's a verbal obfuscation. It means that operationally, we didn't support it."
Miles Pomper, Senior Fellow, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation: "Because the Russians and the Chinese are affiliated with the Iranians, [the US will] try not to elevate the level to something beyond a regional conflict, to some global conflict."
What is the difference between a 'preemptive strike' and a 'preventive strike'. Are they not both acts of war?
Wanis-St. John: "These are certainly acts of war. There's no question about it, the Israelis like to call attention and use "preemptive" and "preventive" doctrines in their military strikes, since every country under international laws and norms is allowed to defend itself against aggression, but no country is supposed to lawfully commit aggressions against another country."
Sam Ratner, policy director, Win Without War: "'Preemptive strike' does seem to be, from a definitional standpoint, a misnomer from Israel... this is a war of choice from [Israeli Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu."
Pomper: "It's not a preemptive strike, because that would be [like] the Six Day War, where the planes are on the tarmac and about to attack you, and then you hit them. 'Preventive' is a stop to a long-term threat to Israel. And you know the Iranians aren't shy about threatening."
Negar Mortazavi, host of the Iran Podcast: "If it's not [couched as] preemptive, then it will be seen differently both from the public opinion and the global opinion... and we know that Israel cares a lot about its image, about its standing in the international community, and that has deteriorated very fast [since its war on Gaza]."
The international community has long tolerated, and sometimes cheered on, Israel's string of extra-judicial assassinations. Why?
Abdi: "Israel has a lot of political power and very important friends, most importantly, the United States."
Mortazavi: "Powerful western countries have provided not just financial and armed support, but also diplomatic support and cover to Israel in the UN Security Council... the contradiction - or in a way, that oxymoron - that Israel is dealing with, is that they're a country that came out of the United Nations [in 1948]."
Ratner: "In the post-9/11 era in particular, we've seen not just from the Israeli government, but from Iranian governments, including our own, in fact, and in particular our own, a real sort of generational change of attitude toward the use of assassination. We see it in our drone programme. The erosion of the norm against assassination is bad for diplomacy, bad for international relations, and bad for peace."
Looking at the nature of Israel's attacks, can Iran retaliate in the same way?
Wanis-St John: "I'm not sure that they can, operationally. I've never seen Iran do that against Israel.... you really need a lot of information about where [targets] are and where they're moving and how they're protected at night. That requires a lot of infrastructure. I'm not sure that the Iranians have that."
Abdi: "If we're saying there are no laws, there is no accountability, you can conduct extra-judicial killings with impunity, then it would seem that would no longer restrain any actor from engaging in the same types of activities. But we know that that's not how the world works, and that certain countries have been given a carte blanche to do whatever they want."
Mortazavi: "The condemnation would be so different... imagine if the same was done by Iran. Israeli officials also have homes and families."
Why can't Iran have a nuclear bomb if Israel does?
Mortazavi: "Iran is a signatory to the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They have committed to not building nuclear weapons [and] they have a civilian programme. According to US intelligence, they don't have a weapons programme. At the same time, Israel has an undeclared weapons programme [and] many nuclear warheads. They're not a signatory to any international monitoring and safeguards."
Ratner: "Our position on this is that we are opposed to nuclear proliferation and [in favour of] nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons are unimaginably destructive forces, and the more hands those weapons are in, the more likely that nuclear warfare becomes. If we add another country to the nuclear club, how many more countries will join?"
Abdi: "Iran has threatened before that if something like [Friday's attacks] happened, they would abandon the NPT, and then there would be no international law saying they're not allowed to build nuclear weapons. They could do what Israel did, and develop a clandestine programme, and not be held accountable to any treaties or agreements or anything, and it's just the law of the jungle, and everybody gets a nuke."
Israel has always said it wants to take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Isn't that dangerous?
Pomper: "I think, as opposed to attacking a nuclear power plant that's got actual radioactive material, like Zaporizhzhia in Ukraine, it's different... You don't have that kind of concentration. And so you may have environmental and other damages, but you're not likely to get a widespread radiation danger from it."
Wanis-St John: "They shouldn't really be targeted if they're not military programmes. No one has said that the Iranians are building a nuclear weapon at this time. They don't claim to be making one, and nobody on the outside claims that they are making one... The Israeli attack is really meant to send them a signal that any progress towards weapons-grade enrichment is not going to be tolerated by Israel."
Ratner: "The bigger concern... is that Iran has made clear statements and threats that if the Israeli government strikes its nuclear facilities, that it will respond by striking US targets in the region. And what we see from Benjamin Netanyahu is a desire for exactly that to happen. His interest is in starting a chain of events that drags the US into war on his side, because the Israeli military would have a very difficult time pursuing regime change in Iran on its own."