Bracing for an Israeli strike

Politico

21 hours ago

With help from Eli Stokols, Benjamin Guggenheim, Jack Detsch and Daniel Lippman
Subscribe here | Email Eric
Washington's Middle East specialists have been spending today gaming out scenarios for what an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities could look like, and whether there's any way it could happen without sparking wider regional war.
Analysts and former U.S. officials say the level of escalation would ultimately come down to the scope of a strike, the role the United States plays in any attack and the degree of internal pressure from hardliners within the Iranian regime.
There's no indication that a strike is imminent, but with the U.S. evacuating diplomatic posts, Iran threatening to hit U.S. installations and Israeli officials scheduling emergency meetings with the U.S. Middle East envoy, officials in the region and in Washington are on alert.
Per MARK DUBOWITZ, who leads the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank in Washington, Israel has a few options at its disposal and they're all escalatory. Israel, Dubowitz says, might use airstrikes alone, or use a combination of airstrikes and operations by special forces to penetrate deep into Iran's nuclear facilities. Israel could also target Iran's nuclear scientists as a way to degrade the program's ability to rebuild.
There's also the question of whether the U.S. would play any role facilitating or participating in the strikes. Israel has long been loathe to take such actions without at least a tacit nod from the U.S., but that doesn't mean they wouldn't go ahead without it.
Dubowitz argues that U.S. involvement could actually prevent more escalation, saying that Supreme Leader ALI KHAMENEI 'knows that the United States, unlike Israel, has the firepower to really bring down his regime.'
President DONALD TRUMP said today 'I'd love to avoid the conflict' and reiterated his hope for a deal, but added that an Israeli strike against Iran 'looks like something that could very well happen.'
A person close to Trump's national security team told our own Eli Stokols that there is some frustration with Israeli Prime Minister BENJAMIN NETANYAHU over Israel's insistence on threatening strikes. The person, granted anonymity to speak freely because of a fear of reprisals, also noted that the Trump administration isn't aligned with hardliners such as conservative commentator MARK LEVIN who want an Israeli strike on Iran.
There is consensus that Iran, regardless of the nature of the strikes, would respond, and that it would exercise some degree of restraint.
'Iran's not suicidal,' said AARON DAVID MILLER, a veteran Middle East peace negotiator who worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. 'The supreme leader has got to worry about regime stability.'
Yet that doesn't guarantee Iran would employ the same degree of restraint as it has previously.
TRITA PARSI, executive vice president at the non-interventionist Quincy Institute think tank in Washington, warns that the Iranian government is facing internal pressure from hardliners who felt that Tehran's decision not to respond forcefully to previous Israeli strikes hasn't benefited Iran. Any strike is also likely going to throw a wrench in nuclear talks with Iran, if they haven't already collapsed by then.
'A response to these circumstances is likely to be swifter and far more devastating than before,' Parsi said. 'If Trump has been convinced that some limited Israeli attack is helpful to soften the Iranian negotiating position, I think he will find out that It's quite the opposite, and that the Israelis know very well that the opposite is going to be the outcome, meaning the complete collapse of diplomacy.'
The Inbox
AUSSIES' AUKUS CALM: The Australian government is keeping calm and carrying on in the wake of news that the Trump administration is reviewing the AUKUS deal, which links the U.S., Australia and the United Kingdom in an effort to jointly develop submarines and hypersonic missiles.
A spokesperson for Australian Deputy Prime Minister RICHARD MARLES told our own Paul McLeary that AUKUS member nations were notified about the review and that the Australian government considered the U.S. review a normal and expected part of the process.
The spokesperson said that Trump discussed the AUKUS agreement with top Australian officials twice since taking office.
RFK ASSASSINATION DUMP: The CIA — perhaps picking its moment carefully — released 54 declassified documents today about the 1968 assassination of presidential candidate and New York Sen. ROBERT F. KENNEDY.
There were no smoking guns, but there were some interesting details. The Associated Press' David Klepper reported that according to the around 1,500 pages of previously classified documents, the former attorney general met with the CIA in 1955 after touring the Soviet Union to relay observations about the country, all as a voluntary informant.
The release of the new pages comes two months after the administration released more than 10,000 pages related to RFK's assassination. And it reflects a focus from this administration to declassify more government documents in an effort to keep the nation's intelligence agencies accountable.
ZELENSKYY'S ADVOCACY: Ukrainian President VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY is urging Trump to make up his mind about whether or not to trust the Russian government's efforts to negotiate a ceasefire in Ukraine, arguing that time for peace is running low.
'Russia is simply lying to Trump,' Zelenskyy said in a Wednesday interview with the Axel Springer Global Reporters network, of which POLITICO is a member. 'Most heads of state and government share my opinion, and I very much hope that America sees and understands this. That is the most important thing. How you respond to that is America's decision.'
During the same interview, Zelenskyy said he regrets how negatively his meeting with Trump in the Oval Office in February went, when Trump and Vice President JD VANCE harshly criticized Zelenskyy for not being grateful enough for U.S. support in Ukraine's war with Russia. Zelenskyy praised the later meeting with Trump at The Vatican in April as being more productive and 'friendly.'
'We were able to discuss much more than at the other meeting, which felt like it lasted a lifetime,' Zelenskyy said.
IT'S THURSDAY: Thanks for tuning in to NatSec Daily! This space is reserved for the top U.S. and foreign officials, the lawmakers, the lobbyists, the experts and the people like you who care about how the natsec sausage gets made. Aim your tips and comments at [e-mail], and follow Eric on X @ebazaileimil.
While you're at it, follow the rest of POLITICO's global security team on X and Bluesky at: @dave_brown24, @HeidiVogt, @jessicameyers, @RosiePerper, @nahaltoosi.bsky.social‬, @PhelimKine, @ak_mack, @felschwartz, @connorobrienNH, @paulmcleary, @reporterjoe, @JackDetsch, @samuelskove, @magmill95, @johnnysaks130 and @delizanickel
Keystrokes
NATO ON CYBER: The upcoming NATO summit this month will give countries the chance to show how they're upping their defense spending — and the Trump administration is hoping cyber initiatives will be part of the discussion.
Shawn Powers, a spokesperson for the State Department's cyber bureau, told Maggie in a statement when asked about whether the U.S. would support any cyber initiatives at the summit — which runs June 24-25 in The Hague — that 'the world faces different threats than we did in 1949, and our spending requirements should reflect that. You can't stop a cyberattack with a tank.'
Powers went on to say that NATO should focus on cyber intrusions and other hybrid threats, stressing that 'we expect allies to spend on infrastructure, invest in civilian protection, and ready their cyber, space and hybrid threat defenses.'
While it's not clear which allies the statement was referring to, some NATO members have already stepped up their funding for countering cyberattacks. ANNA-MARIA OSULA, cyber and economic counselor at the Estonian Embassy in Washington, D.C., said that while Estonia — arguably the most cyber-focused nation in NATO — will 'not have major cyber/tech messages as this will not be the focus in the Hague discussions … it remains relevant to support Ukraine in every way, including Ukraine's cyber defence via the IT coalition.'
And earlier this week, the Canadian government announced a major increase to its defense spending, which includes $560 million Canadian dollars, or around $409 million in American dollars, to strengthen cyber and digital efforts.
DOD DENIAL: Defense Secretary PETE HEGSETH denied today that he ordered a pause on Cyber Command's operations around Russia earlier this year, reiterating an earlier Pentagon denial but contradicting a key member of Congress.
'It's false, we said it then,' Hegseth testified during a House Armed Services Committee hearing in regards to a report from February that he had ordered Cyber Command to stand down its operations on Russia.
The Pentagon denied this report days later, but Rep. DON BACON (R-Neb.), chair of the committee's cyber subcommittee, said last month that he understood the pause had lasted a day.
The Complex
THE BEST OF HEGSETH: Hegseth today wrapped up his multi-day spree of testimony on Capitol Hill, as he and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Gen. DAN CAINE work to convince lawmakers that the military merits a major ramp-up in funding via the reconciliation process.
Our Defense team closely watched the various Armed Services and Appropriations committee hearings this week. Here are some key takeaways from their coverage (for Pros!).
One, Hegseth got a lot of questions about the deployment of Marines to Los Angeles. Today before the House Armed Services Committee, Hegseth demurred as to whether he'd comply with a court order against the deployment of the Marines. And he's defended the deployment over the course of several days — even if he's struggled to explain why they should be deployed.
Meanwhile, Republicans have repeatedly lashed Hegseth for stopping short of voicing support for Ukraine in the face of Russian attacks, including White House ally Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.). Hegseth also got pressed for specifics from House appropriators on submarines, the Golden Dome initiative and other key marquee defense spending programs.
On the Hill
REPUBLICANS' IRAN STRIKE CALM: Republicans on the Hill aren't voicing too much concern with Israel's potential strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, or much confidence in the president's efforts to secure a nuclear deal.
'Israel has every right to defend itself against its neighbors,' Sen. PETE RICKETTS (R-Neb.) told NatSec Daily on Capitol Hill.
Some Republicans couched their thinking in their pessimism about the prospects for a nuclear deal and Iran's commitment to ditching enrichment. 'It doesn't appear to me that Iran is going to voluntarily stop developing nuclear weapons. So if that's true, all right, then probably somebody is going to have to strike,' said Sen. RICK SCOTT (R-Fla.).
Sen. MIKE ROUNDS (R-S.D.), who serves on both the Armed Services and Intelligence committees, told NatSec Daily that he doesn't have confidence the president can secure a nuclear deal with Iran. He also said it wasn't appropriate for the U.S. to tell Israel how to act vis-a-vis Iran.
The comments stand in stark contrast to those of other White House allies today, signaling a rift in Republican circles over how to engage with Tehran and Israel. MAGA personalities, including far-right commentator JACK POSOBIEC and Breitbart editor MATT BOYLE, warned that an Israeli strike could undermine the president's political coalition and be counterproductive to the president's aims.
Not every prominent GOP lawmaker was pessimistic about the state of talks. House Foreign Affairs Chair BRIAN MAST of Florida told our colleague Benjamin Guggenheim: 'We're still speaking. We're still talking. It's not past a point of no return.' He also said that while these talks were 'a steeply uphill battle' and Iran's continued enrichment aims complicate matters, 'we believe in the diplomacy process, and we're not going to abandon that at any point.'
Broadsides
MEANWHILE AT THE IAEA: While Israel seems poised to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, the U.N. nuclear watchdog is slamming Tehran for not complying with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The resolution from the International Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors was expected. It accused Iran of not providing the IAEA with complete information about its nuclear facilities and the state of its nuclear program. And the resolution, per The New York Times' Steven Erlanger, could serve as the pretext for the U.N. Security Council to reimpose sanctions on Tehran.
Tehran, for its part, is doubling down. It slammed the IAEA, saying the resolution 'completely called into question the credibility and prestige' of the agency, and vowed to launch a new enrichment site.
Transitions
— Trump's top Africa diplomat, TROY FITRELL, is stepping down in mid-July, Semafor's Mathias Hammer and Yinka Adegoke scoop. Fitrell's departure follows the removal of Major General JAMI SHAWLEY, the top White House Africa official, from the National Security Council and the merger of the NSC's Africa and Middle East offices.
— DANIEL WHITE is now chief of staff at Metropolis Technologies. He most recently was deputy assistant secretary for strategy and policy planning at the Department of Homeland Security.
— HENRIETTA LEVIN is now senior fellow for the Freeman Chair in China Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. She most recently was deputy China coordinator for global affairs at the State Department.
What to Read
— Jamie Dettmer, POLITICO: Will Netanyahu never learn?
— Ian Cloud, Responsible Statecraft: The terrible cost of bringing Ukraine's bodies home
— Kori Schake, Foreign Policy: Congress Must Constrain Trump
Tomorrow Today
— National Institute for Deterrence Studies, 10 a.m.: 'The Implications of a Nuclear Armed South Korea.'
— Jerusalem Fund, 12 p.m.: Vietnam Then, Palestine Now: U.S. Subversion of Liberation Movements
— George Washington University Elliott School of International Affairs, 3:30 p.m.: A book discussion on 'The Milk Tea Alliance: Inside Asia's Struggle Against Autocracy and Beijing.'
Thanks to our editors, Heidi Vogt and Ester Wells, who always escalate conflicts about this newsletter unnecessarily.