Early this morning (June 13), Israel launched a massive air attack on Iran. Over 200 aircraft hit about 100 targets in different parts of the country, including the capital, Tehran. Besides the Natanz nuclear facility, targets have included the residences of prominent Iranian military and scientific personalities. First reports have said that the head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Major General Hossein Salami, and his deputy, Major General Ghulam Ali Rashid, have been killed, as also the country’s army chief, Mohammed Bagheri. Two prominent nuclear scientists have also been killed. Later today, there were reports that Iran had directed about 200 drones at Israel; reports from Tel Aviv said that Israel was prepared to intercept them.In a statement before the attacks, Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu named the assault “Operation Rising Lion,” recalling the frequent Biblical references to the lion as the personification of courage, strength, and providing protection and justice. Netanyahu took this name from Book of Numbers 23:24, which reads: “Behold, the people shall rise up as a great lion.” Netanyahu elaborated on the lion analogy by saying: “As the Bible teaches us, when someone comes to kill you, rise and act first. … We [Israel] have risen like lions to defend ourselves.”The prime minister said the operation was aimed at “rolling back the Iranian threat to Israel’s very survival” and that it would “continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat”. Israeli official sources have described the attacks as “a pre-emptive, precise, combined offensive to strike Iran’s nuclear programme.” Pointing out that Iran is “closer than ever” to obtaining a nuclear weapon, the sources described this as “an existential threat to the state of Israel and to the wider world”.The Israeli attacks have taken place just two days before the next round of US-Iran talks on the nuclear issue which were to take place in Muscat. The earlier fifth round in Rome in May had ended in some acrimony when, media reports said, Iran was said to have rejected the US demand that it terminate its uranium enrichment programme. Iran was said to have submitted an alternative proposal that affirmed its right to enrichment, under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and sought substantial relief from the onerous US sanctions. Towards warIn the run-up to the conflict, there was some posturing on the nuclear matter in the public domain. Iran’s IRGC sources said on June 11 that Iran’s approach was made up of two core principles: the right to enrich uranium and obtain the lifting of sanctions. The statement also cockily asserted that if agreement with the other side was not possible, Iran would “enhance its nuclear programme.” The IRGC also noted with satisfaction that Trump himself had described the Iranian negotiators as “extraordinary” and “tough,” possibly concluding – mistakenly – that this applause might lead to a mutually acceptable deal. Separately, a day before the Israeli attacks, foreign minister Abbas Araghchi affirmed that Iran’s nuclear programme was peaceful, and expressed confidence that an agreement with the US was possible. However, on the eve of the conflict, Iran suffered a major diplomatic setback: the Governing Body of the IAEA, by a 19-3 vote (with 11 abstentions), declared, for the first time in 20 years, that Iran was not complying with its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. The resolution, promoted by the US and its western allies, said that Iran had failed to provide information about undeclared nuclear material and nuclear-related activities at different locations. The resolution also stated that the IAEA was not assured that Iran’s nuclear programme was “exclusively peaceful” and suggested that this matter could go before the UN Security Council, though it did not insist on this at this stage. Iran responded harshly: a joint statement of its Foreign Office and its nuclear agency described the resolution as “political” and one that “completely called into question the credibility and prestige” of the IAEA. In a fit of bravado, Iran also announced that it would establish a new enrichment site in a safe zone and that the first-generation (IR-1) centrifuges at its Fordow site would be replaced with advanced sixth-generation centrifuges. Israeli media have reported, based on official briefings, that just before the attacks its senior government officials took some steps to misguide Iran about the impending action. A cabinet meeting to approve the attacks was publicly billed as one that would discuss the issue of hostages in Gaza; it was also announced that two officials would travel to Washington to discuss the US-Iran talks in Muscat that weekend. Reports were also floated about deep differences between Trump and Netanyahu, with the former firmly opposing a military strike on Iran.US complicityAt this early stage, it seems that Iran was truly misled about Israeli intentions and US complicity in the attack. In terms of timing, the attack has ensured that there will no US-Iran deal on the nuclear matter. It has been Israel’s consistent position that no deal that permits Iran to enrich is acceptable; there would have been legitimate concerns in Tel Aviv that the US would finalise some deal with Tehran at Muscat which would not conform with Israel’s maximalist demands. This leads to the related question – to what extent was the US complicit in the attacks? Soon after the Israeli attacks, Secretary of State Marco Rubio denied any US involvement in the attacks; US priority, he said, was the safety of its forces in the region, and warned Iran not to target US interests or personnel. However, despite some indications of a US-Israel divide, it is most unlikely that Israel would have launched the attacks without an American green signal. During Trump’s visit to the Gulf countries last month, there were deliberate hints that the president was distancing himself from Netanyahu; however, it was noteworthy that Trump had not called for a ceasefire in Gaza or increased humanitarian assistance to the Palestinians who were experiencing famine conditions. In fact, after the visit, the US sanctioned four judges of the International Court of Justice for their criticisms of Israel and later, on June 5, it vetoed a UN Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Observers also point out that, even if Netanyahu were to flout Trump’s views – an unlikely proposition – there is no way the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) would have launched these attacked without American assent. Now, by publicly distancing itself from the attacks, the US has obtained deniability for itself, while backing Israel fully in exercising its military option against Iran. The US position has several advantages for itself: the Israeli attacks will shatter Iran’s nuclear ambitions, a long-cherished American goal. At the same time, by preventing Iran from attacking US assets, it will ensure that the war is contained between the two antagonists and does not evolve into a regional conflagration. Implications for West AsiaGiven that this is just Day One of the conflict, we have yet to see how the confrontation will pan out. Israel has indicated its interest in pursuing a long conflict until all of Iran’s nuclear capabilities are destroyed. This could be a prolonged effort, with uncertain consequences, including expanding the conflict and/ or substantial collateral damage across the region. A more likely possibility would be for Israel to inflict considerable damage on Iran and then – reluctantly – halt the military operations at American behest. In this way, Israel would have full control over the flow of events, while dealing a hammer-blow to Iran which will dilute its political and military capacity for several years. Again, a short, sharp operation will enhance Netanyahu’s personal standing at home, keep his coalition intact, and make it almost impossible for his rivals to pursue investigations on the events of October 7, 2023 or even the earlier criminal charges.The implications for Iran are likely to be much more dire. The deep sense of national humiliation and the death and destruction at home, including the targeted killings of several prominent leaders, will discredit the regime which will be seen as having failed to protect national security and national pride. Over four decades, the sanctions have been the price the Iranian people have paid for their Islamic Revolution and their “resistance” to the US-led world order. But for most Iranians the revolution has been corroded by autocracy and corruption, with Iran having very little to show for the price its people have paid – several hundred of them were killed in hijab-related protests in 2022. Many Iranians will ask their leaders to explain the central place of the nuclear programme in the country’s priorities, and the attendant insistence on enrichment, when national military capabilities were in fact so grossly inadequate and incapable of supporting the leaders’ grandiose rhetoric. Linked with this, the people could also wonder why nuclear capabilities have been prioritised while conventional military capacity has remained so deficient. Widespread demonstrations calling for reform, even regime change, may be expected in coming days, reminiscent of the demonstrations that led to the fall of the Shah 46 years ago. Finally, there is now a sea-change in the regional strategic scenario. The regional balance of power has swung in favour of Israel, which is now the regional hegemonic power. Over the last year and a half, in response to the Hamas attacks, Israel, backed by US military supplies, has defeated every force that was hostile to US-Israeli interests. With Syria recently coopted into the Western alliance, the regional scenario is reminiscent of the early days of the Cold War when the US dominated all of West Asia, from Turkey to Pakistan. Since the early 1980s, the US has been the regional hegemon and security provider. From early 2010s, the US increasingly lost standing and credibility as the guardian of security interests of the Arab Gulf states. From the 2020s, these states had begun to shrug off the US yoke and pursue independent policies. The return of US hegemony also sets the stage for the Gulf Arab states to review their assertions of strategic autonomy and rebind themselves to US hegemony. This poses serious challenges to aspirations of regional states to shape a new multipolar order in West Asia, Eurasia and the Indian Ocean littoral.As Israel basks in its triumph, it is worth noting that the Bible also views the lion in a more negative light; 1 Peter 5:8 warns: “Be alert and of sober mind. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.”Talmiz Ahmad is the former ambassador to Oman, the UAE and Saudi Arabia.