Why are Israel and Iran at war? What are the risks? Experts weigh in

Miami Herald

6 hours ago

The war between Israel and Iran continues to rage on, with both sides ramping up deadly attacks on one another, threatening to engulf the region in a broader conflict.
How did the war begin? Why did Israel initiate it? And what are the risks associated with it — particularly for the U.S.? Experts on the region weighed in below.
How did the war start?
On June 13, Israel launched a large-scale military campaign against Iran — its long-time adversary, which it accuses of sponsoring terrorism — code-named Operation Rising Lion.
Dozens of military sites across the country, including nuclear sites, were struck with air-to-surface missiles, according to the Israel Defense Force (IDF). Nine nuclear scientists and multiple top generals were also killed.
Hours later, Iran responded by unleashing a barrage of missiles on Israeli cities, many of which were intercepted by the country's Iron Dome defensive system, but some broke through, with explosions rattling Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.
Over the ensuing days, both sides carried out more attacks, which have amounted to more than 200 deaths in Iran and 24 deaths in Israel as of June 16.
The outbreak of conflict came just days before Iran was scheduled to enter into its sixth round of nuclear talks with the U.S.
Why did Israel attack?
Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said the offensive against Iran was carried out in order to cripple its nuclear program, which they assert was on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb.
'The proximate trigger for the conflict was intelligence that Iran had, in fact, made advances on weaponization of a potential nuclear weapon which, combined with the progress in enrichment and its worrisome stockpile of highly enriched uranium, posed an imminent threat of breakout,' Robert Satloff, the executive director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told McClatchy News.
Multiple Middle East experts, though, pushed back against the notion that Iran posed an immediate danger.
'The nuclear threat from Iran was potential, not imminent,' Richard Betts, a professor emeritus of war and peace studies at Columbia University, told McClatchy News.
'No serious analyst of this topic believes Iran was about to produce a nuclear bomb and drop it on Israel,' Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East politics at Georgetown University, told McClatchy News.
The U.S. intelligence community has recently shared this view as well. In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before Congress that Iran is not in the process of constructing a nuclear weapon (Trump, on June 16, disregarded this assessment, asserting the country was 'very close' to developing a weapon).
Aside from fears about Iran's nuclear ambitions, other factors likely played into Israel's pre-emptive attack, experts said.
Among them are 'the prime minister's domestic political calculations, the protracted campaign against Palestinians in Gaza, and a more permissive international environment that features a sympathetic Trump administration,' Nathan Funk, a professor of peace and conflict studies at the University of Waterloo, told McClatchy News.
'Netanyahu likely arrived at the conclusion that he has little to lose and much to gain,' he said.
Was the U.S. involved?
Messaging from the Trump administration has been mixed as it relates to whether U.S. officials had direct involvement in Israel's attacks.
Shortly after they began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on X that 'Israel took unilateral action against Iran,' adding, 'We are not involved in strikes against Iran and our top priority is protecting American forces in the region.' The message was shared by the White House.
But, Trump later told Reuters he had advance knowledge of the attack, saying 'we knew everything.'
In a June 16 post, he said 'IRAN CAN NOT HAVE A NUCLEAR WEAPON' and added 'Everyone should immediately evacuate Tehran!'
'The exact position of the Trump administration in all of this is still opaque,' Funk said. 'The extent to which Trump and his deputies approved of this attack — or merely decided to accommodate it — remains uncertain.'
Satloff added that Trump has long been a top ally of Israel — and that the U.S. military is already involved to some degree.
'From the outset, the Trump administration has been very supportive, especially in terms of playing a key role in Israel's layered defense against Iranian missile strikes,' he said.
Throughout the latest conflict, U.S. military assets in the region have assisted Israel in intercepting Iranian missiles, according to Axios.
'To date, the U.S. has not gotten directly involved but this might soon change, (especially) if Iran attacks U.S. troops or ships,' Hashemi said.
What are the risks?
Experts warned that there are numerous risks if the U.S. were to be more actively involved in the conflict — which Trump has said is a possibility.
'There are grave risks to the U.S. if this situation persists, including threats to U.S. personnel and infrastructure in the Gulf region, economic dangers associated with a possible impact on oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, and the possibility that the U.S. could be drawn directly into the armed conflict if it continues to escalate,' Funk said.
Hashemi said there are alarming parallels to previous wars in the region.
'This feels very much like the lead up to the 2003 war in Iraq,' he said, citing exaggerated claims about weapons of mass destruction and a flouting of international law. 'It is clear the West has learned very little from the Iraq war.'
Satloff, in contrast, pushed back against comparisons to the Iraq War, which led to the deaths of over 4,400 U.S. service members and about 200,000 Iraqi civilians over the course of eight years.
'I think the potential for an 'Iraq war 2.0' is slim to none,' he said. 'This is principally an aerial conflict, without the tens of thousands of boots on the ground that characterized Iraq.'
But, without diplomacy, the situation could escalate, 'leading to outcomes that would be profoundly destructive to U.S. security interests and to the peoples of the region,' Funk cautioned.
'Diplomacy can be frustrating,' he said, 'but war is much, much worse.'